Amr A Abdel-Aziem1, Heba My El-Basatiny2. 1. 1 Department of Biomechanics, Faculty of Physical Therapy, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt. 2. 2 Physical Therapy Department, College of Applied Medical Sciences, University of Dammam, KSA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of backward walking training and forward walking training on spatiotemporal gait parameters, and gross motor function measures in children with cerebral palsy. DESIGN: Randomized controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Physical therapy clinics. SUBJECTS: A total of 30 children with hemiparetic cerebral palsy of both sexes (10 to 14 years of age, classified as I or II by gross motor function classification system) participated in this study. They were randomly assigned into two equal groups. INTERVENTIONS: Both groups received a conventional physical therapy program for 12 successive weeks (three sessions per week). The experimental group additionally received (25 min) backward walking training. The control group additionally received (25 min) forward walking training. OUTCOME MEASURES: Baseline, posttreatment, and follow-up assessment for spatiotemporal gait parameters and gross motor functions were evaluated by using three dimensional gait analysis system and gross motor function measures. RESULTS: There was a significant improvement in step length, walking velocity, cadence, stance phase, and swing phase percentage and gross motor function measures (Dimensions D and E) of the experimental group (0.55 ±0.16, 0.53 ±0.19, 121.73 ±2.89, 54.73 ±1.67, 44.40 ±1.40, 90.20 ±6.44, 82.47 ±12.82), respectively, than the control group (0.39 ±0.13, 0.46 ±0.20, 125.80 ±2.96, 50.27 ±1.62, 49.47 ±1.55, 82.47 ±7.05, 80.47 ±12.61), respectively, ( p < 0.05). The significant improvement of all measured outcomes of the experimental group was maintained at 1 month follow-up assessment ( p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In addition to a conventional physical therapy program, backward walking training is more effective than forward walking training on spatiotemporal gait parameters, and gross motor function measures in children with hemiparetic cerebral palsy.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of backward walking training and forward walking training on spatiotemporal gait parameters, and gross motor function measures in children with cerebral palsy. DESIGN: Randomized controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Physical therapy clinics. SUBJECTS: A total of 30 children with hemiparetic cerebral palsy of both sexes (10 to 14 years of age, classified as I or II by gross motor function classification system) participated in this study. They were randomly assigned into two equal groups. INTERVENTIONS: Both groups received a conventional physical therapy program for 12 successive weeks (three sessions per week). The experimental group additionally received (25 min) backward walking training. The control group additionally received (25 min) forward walking training. OUTCOME MEASURES: Baseline, posttreatment, and follow-up assessment for spatiotemporal gait parameters and gross motor functions were evaluated by using three dimensional gait analysis system and gross motor function measures. RESULTS: There was a significant improvement in step length, walking velocity, cadence, stance phase, and swing phase percentage and gross motor function measures (Dimensions D and E) of the experimental group (0.55 ±0.16, 0.53 ±0.19, 121.73 ±2.89, 54.73 ±1.67, 44.40 ±1.40, 90.20 ±6.44, 82.47 ±12.82), respectively, than the control group (0.39 ±0.13, 0.46 ±0.20, 125.80 ±2.96, 50.27 ±1.62, 49.47 ±1.55, 82.47 ±7.05, 80.47 ±12.61), respectively, ( p < 0.05). The significant improvement of all measured outcomes of the experimental group was maintained at 1 month follow-up assessment ( p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In addition to a conventional physical therapy program, backward walking training is more effective than forward walking training on spatiotemporal gait parameters, and gross motor function measures in children with hemiparetic cerebral palsy.
Authors: Oluwole O Awosika; Marco Sandrini; Rita Volochayev; Ryan M Thompson; Nathan Fishman; Tianxia Wu; Mary Kay Floeter; Mark Hallett; Leonardo G Cohen Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2019-01-29 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: Mathias Baptiste Correno; Clint Hansen; Matthias Chardon; Tracy Milane; Edoardo Bianchini; Nicolas Vuillerme Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-10-06 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Maria Dolores Apolo-Arenas; Aline Ferreira de Araújo Jerônimo; Alejandro Caña-Pino; Orlando Fernandes; Joana Alegrete; Jose Alberto Parraca Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2021-06-26