Theresa Sukal-Moulton1, Theresa Clancy2, Li-Qun Zhang3, Deborah Gaebler-Spira4. 1. Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, Chicago, IL; National Institutes of Health, Clinical Center, Rehabilitation Medicine, Functional and Applied Biomechanics Section, Bethesda, MD. 2. Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, Chicago, IL. 3. Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Biomedical Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL; Orthopaedic Surgery, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL. 4. Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL. Electronic address: dgaebler@ric.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical efficacy of an ankle robotic rehabilitation protocol for patients with cerebral palsy. DESIGN: The clinic cohort was identified from a retrospective chart review in a before-after intervention trial design and compared with a previously published prospective research cohort. SETTING: Rehabilitation hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Children (N=28; mean age, 8.2±3.62 y) with Gross Motor Function Classification System levels I, II, or III who were referred for ankle stretching and strengthening used a robotic ankle device in a clinic setting. Clinic results were compared with a previously published cohort of participants (N=12; mean age, 7.8±2.91 y) seen in a research laboratory-based intervention protocol. INTERVENTIONS: Patients in the clinic cohort were seen 2 times per week for 75-minute sessions for a total of 6 weeks. The first 30 minutes of the session were spent using the robotic ankle device for ankle stretching and strengthening, and the remaining 45 minutes were spent on functional movement activities. There was no control group. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We compared pre- and postintervention measures of plantarflexor and dorsiflexor range of motion, strength, spasticity, mobility (Timed Up and Go test, 6-minute walk test, 10-m walk test), balance (Pediatric Balance Scale), Selective Control Assessment of the Lower Extremity (SCALE), and gross motor function measure (GMFM). RESULTS: Significant improvements were found for the clinic cohort in all main outcome measures except for the GMFM. These improvements were equivalent to those reported in the research cohort, except for larger SCALE test changes in the research cohort. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that translation of repetitive, goal-directed biofeedback training into the clinic setting is both feasible and beneficial for patients with cerebral palsy.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical efficacy of an ankle robotic rehabilitation protocol for patients with cerebral palsy. DESIGN: The clinic cohort was identified from a retrospective chart review in a before-after intervention trial design and compared with a previously published prospective research cohort. SETTING: Rehabilitation hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Children (N=28; mean age, 8.2±3.62 y) with Gross Motor Function Classification System levels I, II, or III who were referred for ankle stretching and strengthening used a robotic ankle device in a clinic setting. Clinic results were compared with a previously published cohort of participants (N=12; mean age, 7.8±2.91 y) seen in a research laboratory-based intervention protocol. INTERVENTIONS:Patients in the clinic cohort were seen 2 times per week for 75-minute sessions for a total of 6 weeks. The first 30 minutes of the session were spent using the robotic ankle device for ankle stretching and strengthening, and the remaining 45 minutes were spent on functional movement activities. There was no control group. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We compared pre- and postintervention measures of plantarflexor and dorsiflexor range of motion, strength, spasticity, mobility (Timed Up and Go test, 6-minute walk test, 10-m walk test), balance (Pediatric Balance Scale), Selective Control Assessment of the Lower Extremity (SCALE), and gross motor function measure (GMFM). RESULTS: Significant improvements were found for the clinic cohort in all main outcome measures except for the GMFM. These improvements were equivalent to those reported in the research cohort, except for larger SCALE test changes in the research cohort. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that translation of repetitive, goal-directed biofeedback training into the clinic setting is both feasible and beneficial for patients with cerebral palsy.
Authors: Jan Willem Gorter; Jules Becher; Ilse Oosterom; Tamis Pin; Paula Dyke; Michael Chan; Michael Shevell Journal: Dev Med Child Neurol Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 5.449
Authors: Eileen G Fowler; Loretta A Staudt; Marcia B Greenberg; William L Oppenheim Journal: Dev Med Child Neurol Date: 2009-02-12 Impact factor: 5.449
Authors: David J Reinkensmeyer; Sarah Blackstone; Cathy Bodine; John Brabyn; David Brienza; Kevin Caves; Frank DeRuyter; Edmund Durfee; Stefania Fatone; Geoff Fernie; Steven Gard; Patricia Karg; Todd A Kuiken; Gerald F Harris; Mike Jones; Yue Li; Jordana Maisel; Michael McCue; Michelle A Meade; Helena Mitchell; Tracy L Mitzner; James L Patton; Philip S Requejo; James H Rimmer; Wendy A Rogers; W Zev Rymer; Jon A Sanford; Lawrence Schneider; Levin Sliker; Stephen Sprigle; Aaron Steinfeld; Edward Steinfeld; Gregg Vanderheiden; Carolee Winstein; Li-Qun Zhang; Thomas Corfman Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil Date: 2017-11-06 Impact factor: 4.262
Authors: Benjamin C Conner; Nushka M Remec; Cassidy M Michaels; Chase W Wallace; Emily Andrisevic; Zachary F Lerner Journal: Gait Posture Date: 2021-10-25 Impact factor: 2.840
Authors: Yanhuan Huang; Will Poyan Lai; Qiuyang Qian; Xiaoling Hu; Eric W C Tam; Yongping Zheng Journal: Biomed Eng Online Date: 2018-06-25 Impact factor: 2.819