Literature DB >> 23220082

Locomotor rehabilitation of individuals with chronic stroke: difference between responders and nonresponders.

Mark G Bowden1, Andrea L Behrman, Richard R Neptune, Chris M Gregory, Steven A Kautz.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To identify the clinical measures associated with improved walking speed after locomotor rehabilitation in individuals poststroke and how those who respond with clinically meaningful changes in walking speed differ from those with smaller speed increases.
DESIGN: A single group pre-post intervention study. Participants were stratified on the basis of a walking speed change of greater than (responders) or less than (nonresponders) .16m/s. Paired sample t tests were run to assess changes in each group, and correlations were run between the change in each variable and change in walking speed.
SETTING: Outpatient interdisciplinary rehabilitation research center. PARTICIPANTS: Hemiparetic subjects (N=27) (17 left hemiparesis; 19 men; age: 58.74±12.97y; 22.70±16.38mo poststroke). INTERVENTION: A 12-week locomotor intervention incorporating training on a treadmill with body weight support and manual trainers accompanied by training overground walking. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Measures of motor control, balance, functional walking ability, and endurance were collected at pre- and postintervention assessments.
RESULTS: Eighteen responders and 9 nonresponders differed by age (responders=63.6y, nonresponders=49.0y, P=.001) and the lower extremity Fugl-Meyer Assessment score (responders=24.7, nonresponders=19.9, P=.003). Responders demonstrated an average improvement of .27m/s in walking speed as well as significant gains in all variables except daily step activity and paretic step ratio. Conversely, nonresponders demonstrated statistically significant improvements only in walking speed and endurance. However, the walking speed increase of .10m/s was not clinically meaningful. Change in walking speed was negatively correlated with changes in motor control in the nonresponder group, implying that walking speed gains may have been accomplished via compensatory mechanisms.
CONCLUSIONS: This study is a step toward discerning the underlying factors contributing to improved walking performance.
Copyright © 2013 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23220082     DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2012.11.032

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil        ISSN: 0003-9993            Impact factor:   3.966


  37 in total

Review 1.  Paretic propulsion as a measure of walking performance and functional motor recovery post-stroke: A review.

Authors:  Sarah A Roelker; Mark G Bowden; Steven A Kautz; Richard R Neptune
Journal:  Gait Posture       Date:  2018-10-25       Impact factor: 2.840

2.  Consequences of biomechanically constrained tasks in the design and interpretation of synergy analyses.

Authors:  Katherine M Steele; Matthew C Tresch; Eric J Perreault
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2015-01-14       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 3.  A systematic review of mechanisms of gait speed change post-stroke. Part 2: exercise capacity, muscle activation, kinetics, and kinematics.

Authors:  Elizabeth C Wonsetler; Mark G Bowden
Journal:  Top Stroke Rehabil       Date:  2017-02-20       Impact factor: 2.119

Review 4.  A systematic review of mechanisms of gait speed change post-stroke. Part 1: spatiotemporal parameters and asymmetry ratios.

Authors:  Elizabeth C Wonsetler; Mark G Bowden
Journal:  Top Stroke Rehabil       Date:  2017-02-21       Impact factor: 2.119

5.  Combining Fast-Walking Training and a Step Activity Monitoring Program to Improve Daily Walking Activity After Stroke: A Preliminary Study.

Authors:  Kelly A Danks; Ryan Pohlig; Darcy S Reisman
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2016-05-27       Impact factor: 3.966

6.  Balance impairment limits ability to increase walking speed in individuals with chronic stroke.

Authors:  Addie Middleton; Carty H Braun; Michael D Lewek; Stacy L Fritz
Journal:  Disabil Rehabil       Date:  2016-03-13       Impact factor: 3.033

7.  Comparison of the Immediate Effects of Audio, Visual, or Audiovisual Gait Biofeedback on Propulsive Force Generation in Able-Bodied and Post-stroke Individuals.

Authors:  Justin Liu; Hyun Bin Kim; Steven L Wolf; Trisha M Kesar
Journal:  Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback       Date:  2020-09

8.  The relative contribution of ankle moment and trailing limb angle to propulsive force during gait.

Authors:  HaoYuan Hsiao; Brian A Knarr; Jill S Higginson; Stuart A Binder-Macleod
Journal:  Hum Mov Sci       Date:  2014-12-12       Impact factor: 2.161

9.  The influence of locomotor rehabilitation on module quality and post-stroke hemiparetic walking performance.

Authors:  Rebecca L Routson; David J Clark; Mark G Bowden; Steven A Kautz; Richard R Neptune
Journal:  Gait Posture       Date:  2013-03-13       Impact factor: 2.840

10.  Effects of real-time gait biofeedback on paretic propulsion and gait biomechanics in individuals post-stroke.

Authors:  Katlin Genthe; Christopher Schenck; Steven Eicholtz; Laura Zajac-Cox; Steven Wolf; Trisha M Kesar
Journal:  Top Stroke Rehabil       Date:  2018-02-19       Impact factor: 2.119

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.