Literature DB >> 23064734

People with stroke who fail an obstacle crossing task have a higher incidence of falls and utilize different gait patterns compared with people who pass the task.

Catherine M Said1, Mary P Galea, Noel Lythgo.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Obstacle crossing is impaired in people following stroke. It is not known whether people with stroke who fail an obstacle crossing task have more falls or whether the gait adjustments used to cross an obstacle differ from those used by people who pass the task.
OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were (1) to identify whether a group of people with stroke who failed an obstacle crossing task had a greater incidence of falling and (2) to determine whether people who fail an obstacle crossing task utilize different gait adjustments.
DESIGN: This was a prospective, observational study.
METHODS: Thirty-two participants with a recent stroke were recruited. Participants walked at self-selected speed and stepped over a 4-cm-high obstacle. Performance was rated as pass or fail, and spatiotemporal, center of mass (COM), and center of pressure (COP) data were collected. Prospective falls data were recorded for 20 participants over a 6-month period.
RESULTS: The incidence of fallers was significantly higher (incidence rate=0.833) in the group that failed the obstacle crossing task than in the group that passed the task (incidence rate=0.143). The group that failed the task had a slower walking speed and greater normalized separation between the trail heel (unaffected support limb) and COM as the affected lead toe cleared the obstacle. This group exhibited greater normalized times from affected lead toe clearance to landing, unaffected trail toe clearance to landing, and affected trail toe-off to toe clearance. LIMITATIONS: The sample size was small, and falls data were available for only 20 participants.
CONCLUSIONS: Obstacle crossing is an important task to consider in people following stroke and may be useful in identifying those at risk of falls.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23064734     DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20120200

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Ther        ISSN: 0031-9023


  7 in total

1.  Utility of an obstacle-crossing test to classify future fallers and non-fallers at hospital discharge after stroke: A pilot study.

Authors:  Jody A Feld; Adam P Goode; Vicki S Mercer; Prudence Plummer
Journal:  Gait Posture       Date:  2022-05-31       Impact factor: 2.746

2.  Dynamic balance during walking adaptability tasks in individuals post-stroke.

Authors:  Arian Vistamehr; Chitralakshmi K Balasubramanian; David J Clark; Richard R Neptune; Emily J Fox
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2018-04-24       Impact factor: 2.712

3.  Key function for obstacle crossing in hemiplegic persons with varied degrees of spasticity.

Authors:  Hideaki Tanaka; Masami Yokogawa; Takao Nakagawa; Masahide Ibune; Toshihiro Ishiwatari; Shinichirou Kawakita
Journal:  J Phys Ther Sci       Date:  2017-08-10

4.  Identify the Alteration of Balance Control and Risk of Falling in Stroke Survivors During Obstacle Crossing Based on Kinematic Analysis.

Authors:  Na Chen; Xiang Xiao; Huijing Hu; Ying Chen; Rong Song; Le Li
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2019-07-30       Impact factor: 4.003

5.  Avascular Necrosis of the Hip Compromises Gait Balance Control in Female Juveniles With Unilateral Developmental Dysplasia Treated in Toddlerhood.

Authors:  Wei-Chun Lee; Pei-An Lee; Tsan-Yang Chen; Yu-Ting Chen; Kuan-Wen Wu; Yu-Lin Tsai; Ting-Ming Wang; Tung-Wu Lu
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2022-03-24

6.  The effect of obstacle training in water on static balance of chronic stroke patients.

Authors:  Jaehyun Jung; Jiyeun Lee; Eunjung Chung; Kyoung Kim
Journal:  J Phys Ther Sci       Date:  2014-03-25

7.  Reliability and Validity of Dual-Task Mobility Assessments in People with Chronic Stroke.

Authors:  Lei Yang; Chengqi He; Marco Yiu Chung Pang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-01-25       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.