| Literature DB >> 26504326 |
Magdalena Goliwas1, Piotr Kocur1, Lech Furmaniuk1, Marian Majchrzycki2, Marzena Wiernicka1, Jacek Lewandowski3.
Abstract
[Purpose] To assess the effects of sensorimotor foot stimulation on the symmetry of weight distribution on the feet of patients in the chronic post-stroke phase.Entities:
Keywords: Rehabilitation; Sensorimotor foot training; Stroke
Year: 2015 PMID: 26504326 PMCID: PMC4616127 DOI: 10.1589/jpts.27.2925
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Phys Ther Sci ISSN: 0915-5287
The criteria for inclusion or exclusion
| Inclusion criteria | Exclusion criteria |
|---|---|
| - ischaemic cerebral stroke > 12 months | - haemorrhagic stroke; |
| - ability to assume and maintain an erect body posture > 30 s. | - ischaemic stroke occurring < 12 months prior to enrolment; |
| - patient’s consent to participation in the trial | - coexistence of other diseases of the CNSe.g. Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, multiple sclerosis; |
| - diabetes | |
| - injuries involving locomotor immobility (fractures, sprains) | |
| - break in the continuity of soft tissues in the foot | |
| - inability to maintain an erect body posture for at least 30 seconds | |
| - patients who lost balance more than once during the trial | |
| - visible postural imbalance | |
| - history of falls | |
| - headaches and dizziness | |
| - reluctance to participate in the trial |
Fig. 1.Flow diagram showing the passage of participants through the trial
Basic characteristics of the patient groups
| Characteristics / group | SG | CG |
|---|---|---|
| Gender [male/female] | 5/3 | 7/8 |
| Age [years] | 62.3 ± 9.4 | 67.7 ± 9.2 |
| Body weight [kg] | 75.6 ± 9.3 | 74. 8 ± 10.2 |
| Height [cm] | 1.7 ± 0.1 | 1.7 ± 0.1 |
| BMI [kg/m2] | 25.6 ± 1.7 | 26.9 ± 3.1 |
| Time after stroke [years] | 4.4 ± 3.1 | 4.1 ± 2.8 |
| Lesion type [ischaemic/haemorrhagic] | 8/0 | 12/0 |
| Hemiparetic side [right/left] | 2/6 | 5/7 |
mean (SD). There were no significant differences between the groups.
Percentage differences in weight distribution on the directly affected lower extremity (DL) and healthy leg (HL) at baseline and after the completion of the rehabilitation period
| EYES OPEN | Differences in weight distribution on the NL and DL (% - N/cm2) – mean ± SD | Reduction of the differences in weight distribution on the NL and DL and the terms (% - N/cm2) – mean ± SD Eyes open | |
| Baseline test–eyes open | End test–eyes open | ||
| Study group (n=8) | 30.6 ± 19.6% | 17.8 ± 15.2% * | 12.2 ± 12.9% # |
| Control group (N=12) | 20.1 ± 18.4% | 18.7 ± 18.2% | 2.4 ± 4.9% |
| EYES CLOSED | Differences in weight distribution on the NL and DL (% - N/cm2) – mean ± SD | Reduction of the differences in weight distribution on the NL and DL and the terms (% - N/cm2) – mean ± SD Eyes closed | |
| Baseline test–eyes closed | End test–eyes closed | ||
| Study group (n=8) | 26.9 ± 16.9% | 18.1 ± 17.3% * | 8.1 ± 7.2% |
| Control group (N=12) | 18.9 ± 20.9% | 16.5 ± 18.8% | 2.4 ± 9.6% |
*p <0.05 − versus baseline test. # p <0.05 versus control group
Load on the lower extremity directly affected by stroke (DL) and differences in the increase of the total load on the DL prior to and after completing the rehabilitation programme.
| EYES OPEN | Load on the DL (% - N/cm2)–mean ± SD | Increase in the total load on the DL (% - N/cm2)–mean ± SD Eyes open | |
| Baseline test–eyes open | End test–eyes open | ||
| Study group (n=8) | 34.7 ± 6.7% | 41.4 ± 7.6%* | 6.5 ± 6.7% # |
| Control group (N=12) | 39.9 ± 9.2% | 40 ± 9.2% | 0.7 ± 4.9% |
| EYES CLOSED | Load on the DL (% - N/cm2)–mean ± SD | Increase in the total load on the DL (% - N/cm2)–mean ± SD Eyes closed | |
| Baseline test–eyes closed | End test–eyes closed | ||
| Study group (n=8) | 36.5 ± 8.5% | 40.6 ± 8.7%* | 4.1 ± 3.6% |
| Control group (N=12) | 40.5 ± 10.5% | 41.7 ± 9.4% | 1.2 ± 4.8% |
*# p <0.05 versus control group. p <0.05 − versus baseline test