M Sadeghi1,2, J Mclvor3, H Finlayson4, B Sawatzky2,5. 1. Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 2. International Collaboration on Repair Discoveries, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 3. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 4. Division of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 5. Department of Orthopaedics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: This was a cross-over efficacy study design. OBJECTIVE: To determine spasticity differences between static and dynamic standing training in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI). SETTING: Vancouver, Canada. METHODS: Ten individuals with SCI who could stand with or without bracing or supports participated in both dynamic and static standing training (one session each, 2 days apart) using a Segway. The primary outcome was spasticity as measured by Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) and electromyography (EMG) of the quadriceps, hamstrings, adductors and gastrocnemius. RESULTS: There was no statistically detectable difference in spasticity between dynamic and static standing training in individuals with SCI as measured by VAS, MAS or EMG, although there was a trend towards decreased spasticity after the dynamic training. CONCLUSION: There is no significant difference in spasticity outcomes between static and dynamic standing training on a Segway for individuals with SCI. SPONSORSHIP: This research was funded by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and International Collaboration on Repair Discoveries.
STUDY DESIGN: This was a cross-over efficacy study design. OBJECTIVE: To determine spasticity differences between static and dynamic standing training in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI). SETTING: Vancouver, Canada. METHODS: Ten individuals with SCI who could stand with or without bracing or supports participated in both dynamic and static standing training (one session each, 2 days apart) using a Segway. The primary outcome was spasticity as measured by Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) and electromyography (EMG) of the quadriceps, hamstrings, adductors and gastrocnemius. RESULTS: There was no statistically detectable difference in spasticity between dynamic and static standing training in individuals with SCI as measured by VAS, MAS or EMG, although there was a trend towards decreased spasticity after the dynamic training. CONCLUSION: There is no significant difference in spasticity outcomes between static and dynamic standing training on a Segway for individuals with SCI. SPONSORSHIP: This research was funded by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and International Collaboration on Repair Discoveries.