| Literature DB >> 25881322 |
Lynsey D Duffell1, Geoffrey L Brown2, Mehdi M Mirbagheri3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to investigate whether an anti-spasticity medication can facilitate the effects of robotic locomotor treadmill training (LTT) to improve gait function in people with incomplete spinal cord injury (SCI).Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25881322 PMCID: PMC4376342 DOI: 10.1186/s12984-015-0018-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil ISSN: 1743-0003 Impact factor: 4.262
Mean (SD) characteristics of subjects in the LTT alone (LTT) and combined LTT and Tizanidine (TizLTT) groups
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | 7 F; 19 M | 7 F; 15 M |
| Age (years) | 46.6 (12.6) | 46.5 (11.9) |
| Time since injury (years) | 9.3 (8.9) | 10.2 (10.4) |
| Level of injury | 20 C; 6 T | 13 C; 9 T |
| WISCI II score | 14.7 (5.2) | 15.2 (5.1) |
F = Female; M = Male; C = Cervical; T = Thoracic; WISCII II = Walking Index for Spinal Cord Injury II.
Figure 1Mean (SEM) walking (a) speed from 10 minute walk test, (b) distance from the 6-minute walk test and c) time from the timed up and go test for the locomotor treadmill training (LTT; blue) and LTT combined with Tizanidine (TizLTT; red) groups. **p < 0.001 compared with baseline and +p < 0.003 and ++p < 0.001 compared with Week 2.
Mean (SEM) maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) plantarflexion (PF) and dorsiflexion (DF) torque, active range of motion (AROM) and peak movement velocity (Vp) for locomotor treadmill training alone (LTT) and LTT combined with Tizanidine (TizLTT) groups at 0, 1, 2 and 4 weeks after the start of LTT
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Week 0 | 28.1 (4.4) | 30.8 (4.5) | 12.3 (1.4) | 11.5 (1.7) | 34.1 (3.3) | 45.1 (7.5) | 117.1 (13.5) | 165.1 (26.2) |
| Week 1 | 26.2 (3.4) | 33.8 (5.8) | 12.2 (1.4) | 12.0 (2.0) | 37.1 (3.1) | 48.7 (7.3) | 130.7 (14.1) | 182.6 (26.8) |
| Week 2 | 27.6 (3.9) | 33.9 (6.6) | 12.0 (1.4) | 12.1 (2.0) | 36.3 (3.4) | 46.6 (7.2) | 126.8 (14.6) | 179.6 (27.4) |
| Week 4 | 28.4 (4.1) | 33.7 (5.6) | 13.2* (1.7) | 13.0* (2.1) | 35.6 (3.1) | 49.2 (7.4) | 121.5 (13.6) | 186.9 (28.1) |
*Denotes significant difference compared with 0, 1 and 2 weeks (p < 0.05).
Figure 2Change in clinical scores at 4 weeks from baseline for the (a) 10 meter walk test, (b) 6 minute walk test and (c) timed up and go, for subjects in the locomotor treadmill training (LTT; blue) and LTT combined with Tizanidine (TizLTT; red) groups. Dashed lines denote the minimal important difference (MID) for each test [34].
Mean (SEM) baseline clinical scores and baseline kinetic and kinematic variables for subjects in the combined locomotor treadmill training and Tizanidine (TizLTT) and locomotor treadmill training alone (LTT) groups that did and did not achieve the minimal important difference (MID) for walking speed (10MWT)
|
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| WISCI II score | 18.9 (0.9) | 14.3 (1.1) | <0.01 | 16.0 (3.5) | 14.4 (1.2) | 0.70 | |
| 10MWT speed (m/s) | 0.8 (0.1) | 0.4 (0.1) | 0.02 | 1.1 (0.3) | 0.5 (0.1) | 0.01 | |
| 6MWT distance (m) | 280.5 (30.8) | 154.6 (35.8) | 0.02 | 364.5 (92.8) | 171.6 (28.1) | 0.02 | |
| TUG time (s) | 15.0 (1.9) | 51.8 (12.5) | 0.01 | 12.1 (3.1) | 45.1 (9.5) | 0.18 | |
| MVIC torque | PF | 30.7 (6.3) | 30.9 (6.7) | 0.98 | 46.6 (7.9) | 25.4 (3.9) | 0.09 |
| DF | 11.4 (2.2) | 11.7 (2.9) | 0.94 | 17.1 (2.7) | 11.6 (1.5) | 0.16 | |
| AROM | 54.2 (15.2) | 40.2 (8.3) | 0.55 | 48.4 (5.8) | 32.9 (3.7) | 0.09 | |
| Vp | 189.4 (42.5) | 151.9 (34.0) | 0.65 | 160.7 (30.4) | 115.4 (15.9) | 0.27 | |
Walking index for spinal cord injury II (WISCI II); 10 meter walk test (10MWT); 6 minute walk test (6MWT); timed up and go (TUG); maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC); plantarflexors (PF); dorsiflexors (DF); active range of motion (AROM) and peak velocity during isokinetic dorsiflexion (Vp).
Figure 3Peak velocity (Vp) during dorsiflexion in the combined locomotor treadmill training (LTT; blue) and Tizanidine (TizLTT; red) group. (a) Mean (SEM) at 0, 1, 2 and 4 weeks into the intervention and (b) change in Vp plotted against change in walking speed from baseline to the 4th week assessment, for subjects in the TizLTT group that did (filled diamonds) and did not (open diamonds) achieve the minimal important difference (MID) in the 10MWT.