| Literature DB >> 25359231 |
Rodrigo Fernandez-Gonzalo1, Catarina Nissemark, Birgitta Åslund, Per A Tesch, Peter Sojka.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Resistance exercise comprising eccentric (ECC) muscle actions enhances muscle strength and function to aid stroke patients in conducting daily tasks. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of a novel ECC-overload flywheel resistance exercise paradigm to induce muscle and functional performance adaptations in chronic stroke patients.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25359231 PMCID: PMC4236468 DOI: 10.1186/1743-0003-11-150
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil ISSN: 1743-0003 Impact factor: 4.262
Figure 1Cartoon showing the flywheel leg press resistance exercise device for stroke patients.
Characteristics of the 12 patients that completed the study at baseline
| Patient | Age (yr) | Sex | Years since onset | Mechanism of stroke | Affected side | Walking aid |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 57.1 | M | 12.2 | Hemorrhagic | R | None |
| 2 | 57.8 | F | 5.9 | Ischemic | L | Walking stick |
| 3 | 62.3 | M | 17.2 | Hemorrhagic | L | Forearm crutch |
| 4 | 51.9 | F | 9.9 | Ischemic | R | None |
| 5 | 71.6 | M | 3.9 | Ischemic | L | Walking stick |
| 6 | 75.4 | M | 9.6 | Ischemic | R | Walking stick |
| 7 | 58.1 | M | 10.2 | Hemorrhagic | R | None |
| 8 | 66.2 | M | 3.0 | Ischemic | L | None |
| 9 | 69.3 | F | 3.9 | Hemorrhagic | R | None |
| 10 | 70.6 | M | 4.5 | Ischemic | L | Rollator |
| 11 | 68.6 | M | 2.4 | Ischemic | R | None |
| 12 | 50.7 | M | 10.9 | Hemorrhagic | R | None |
|
|
|
|
Figure 2Concentric (CON) and eccentric (ECC) leg press peak power (W) of the affected limb over 16 exercise sessions. Significant main effects (P <0.05); a = interaction session x action, b = main effect of session, c = main effect of action. Significant simple effects (P <0.05); *vs. session 1; #vs. CON action. Data presented as mean ± standard error of the mean.
Isometric and isokinetic knee extension torque (Nm) pre and post training
| Affected leg | Non-affected leg | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre | Post | Δ% | Pre | Post | Δ% | |
| Isometric torqueb | 135 ± 34 | 138 ± 39 | 2 | 195 ± 41# | 187 ± 35# | -4 |
| CON torque at 30°/sb, c | 113 ± 29 | 120 ± 32 | 6 | 147 ± 33# | 144 ± 37# | -2 |
| CON torque at 60°/sb, c | 99 ± 28 | 102 ± 32 | 3 | 123 ± 42# | 131 ± 40# | 6 |
| CON torque at 90°/sb, c | 86 ± 26 | 88 ± 34 | 2 | 111 ± 46# | 115 ± 50# | 4 |
| ECC torque at 30°/sb | 144 ± 40 | 149 ± 40 | 3 | 171 ± 36# | 172 ± 35# | 1 |
| ECC torque at 60°/sa b | 143 ± 41 | 154 ± 45* | 8 | 178 ± 40# | 175 ± 37# | -2 |
| ECC torque at 90°/sa b | 141 ± 36 | 151 ± 39* | 7 | 173 ± 36# | 174 ± 36# | 1 |
CON; concentric, ECC; eccentric. Significant main effects (P <0.05); ainteraction leg x time; bmain effect of leg; cmain effect of speed; Significant simple effects (P <0.05); *vs. pre value within a leg; #vs. affected leg for a time point.
Figure 3Concentric (CON) and eccentric (ECC) leg press peak power (W) of the affected and non-affected limbs (A), and isometric force in the leg press at 90° (B) and 120° (C) knee angle for the affected and non-affected leg during unilateral and bilateral tests performed pre and post training. Significant main effects (P <0.05); a = interaction time x leg, b = interaction time x muscle action, c = interaction leg x mode, d = main effect of time, e = main effect of leg, f = main effect of mode. Significant simple effects (P <0.05); *vs. Pre within a leg; #vs. affected leg; §vs. bilateral mode within a leg and time point.
Balance, gait, functional performance and perceived participation pre and post training
| Pre | Post | |
|---|---|---|
| Berg Balance Scale (a.u.) | 48.5 ± 8.7 | 51.7 ± 6.4* |
| Timed Up-and-Go (s) | 16.9 ± 9.1 | 14.1 ± 7.3* |
| 6-minute Walk Test (m) | 292.9 ± 144.5 | 295.3 ± 146.8 |
| 30-second Chair-Stand (reps) | 8.5 ± 3.5 | 9.9 ± 4.6* |
| Modified Ashworth Scale (a.u.) | 0.77 ± 0.54 | 0.88 ± 0.55 |
| Stroke Impact Scale (a.u.) | 62.2 ± 14.5 | 66.0 ± 12.8§ |
a.u.: arbitrary units, s: seconds, m: meter, reps: repetitions. Significant differences: *vs. Pre (P <0.05); §at the limit of statistical significance vs. Pre (P = 0.058).