Jessica L Allen1, Steven A Kautz2, Richard R Neptune3. 1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA. 2. Department of Health Sciences and Research, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA; Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center, Charleston, SC, USA. 3. Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA. Electronic address: rneptune@mail.utexas.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A common measure of rehabilitation effectiveness post-stroke is self-selected walking speed, yet individuals may achieve the same speed using different coordination strategies. Asymmetry in the propulsion generated by each leg can provide insight into paretic leg coordination due to its relatively strong correlation with hemiparetic severity. Subjects walking at the same speed can exhibit different propulsion asymmetries, with some subjects relying more on the paretic leg and others on the nonparetic leg. The goal of this study was to assess whether analyzing propulsion asymmetry can help distinguish between improved paretic leg coordination versus nonparetic leg compensation. METHODS: Three-dimensional forward dynamics simulations were developed for two post-stroke hemiparetic subjects walking at identical speeds before/after rehabilitation with opposite changes in propulsion asymmetry. Changes in the individual muscle contributions to forward propulsion were examined. FINDINGS: The major source of increased forward propulsion in both subjects was from the ankle plantarflexors. How they were utilized differed and appears related to changes in propulsion asymmetry. Subject A increased propulsion generated from the paretic plantarflexors, while Subject B increased propulsion generated from the nonparetic plantarflexors. Each subject's strategy to increase speed also included differences in other muscle groups (e.g., hamstrings) that did not appear to be related to propulsion asymmetry. INTERPRETATION: The results of this study highlight how speed cannot be used to elucidate underlying muscle coordination changes following rehabilitation. In contrast, propulsion asymmetry appears to provide insight into changes in plantarflexor output affecting propulsion generation and may be useful in monitoring rehabilitation outcomes.
BACKGROUND: A common measure of rehabilitation effectiveness post-stroke is self-selected walking speed, yet individuals may achieve the same speed using different coordination strategies. Asymmetry in the propulsion generated by each leg can provide insight into paretic leg coordination due to its relatively strong correlation with hemiparetic severity. Subjects walking at the same speed can exhibit different propulsion asymmetries, with some subjects relying more on the paretic leg and others on the nonparetic leg. The goal of this study was to assess whether analyzing propulsion asymmetry can help distinguish between improved paretic leg coordination versus nonparetic leg compensation. METHODS: Three-dimensional forward dynamics simulations were developed for two post-stroke hemiparetic subjects walking at identical speeds before/after rehabilitation with opposite changes in propulsion asymmetry. Changes in the individual muscle contributions to forward propulsion were examined. FINDINGS: The major source of increased forward propulsion in both subjects was from the ankle plantarflexors. How they were utilized differed and appears related to changes in propulsion asymmetry. Subject A increased propulsion generated from the paretic plantarflexors, while Subject B increased propulsion generated from the nonparetic plantarflexors. Each subject's strategy to increase speed also included differences in other muscle groups (e.g., hamstrings) that did not appear to be related to propulsion asymmetry. INTERPRETATION: The results of this study highlight how speed cannot be used to elucidate underlying muscle coordination changes following rehabilitation. In contrast, propulsion asymmetry appears to provide insight into changes in plantarflexor output affecting propulsion generation and may be useful in monitoring rehabilitation outcomes.
Authors: Arlene Schmid; Pamela W Duncan; Stephanie Studenski; Sue Min Lai; Lorie Richards; Subashan Perera; Samuel S Wu Journal: Stroke Date: 2007-05-17 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Pamela W Duncan; Katherine J Sullivan; Andrea L Behrman; Stanley P Azen; Samuel S Wu; Stephen E Nadeau; Bruce H Dobkin; Dorian K Rose; Julie K Tilson Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2007-11-08 Impact factor: 2.474
Authors: HaoYuan Hsiao; Louis N Awad; Jacqueline A Palmer; Jill S Higginson; Stuart A Binder-Macleod Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2015-12-31 Impact factor: 3.919
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
Authors: HaoYuan Hsiao; Brian A Knarr; Ryan T Pohlig; Jill S Higginson; Stuart A Binder-Macleod Journal: J Biomech Date: 2015-12-31 Impact factor: 2.712
Authors: Tom J W Buurke; Chang Liu; Sungwoo Park; Rob den Otter; James M Finley Journal: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) Date: 2020-07-29 Impact factor: 2.063
Authors: Emily M McCain; Matthew E Berno; Theresa L Libera; Michael D Lewek; Gregory S Sawicki; Katherine R Saul Journal: J Biomech Date: 2021-07-09 Impact factor: 2.789