Ming Wu1, Janis Kim2, Deborah J Gaebler-Spira2, Brian D Schmit3, Pooja Arora2. 1. Sensory Motor Performance Program, Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago, IL. Electronic address: w-ming@northwestern.edu. 2. Sensory Motor Performance Program, Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, Chicago, IL. 3. Sensory Motor Performance Program, Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago, IL; Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether applying controlled resistance forces to the legs during the swing phase of gait may improve the efficacy of treadmill training as compared with applying controlled assistance forces in children with cerebral palsy (CP). DESIGN: Randomized controlled study. SETTING: Research unit of a rehabilitation hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Children with spastic CP (N=23; mean age, 10.6y; range, 6-14y; Gross Motor Function Classification System levels, I-IV). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned to receive controlled assistance (n=11) or resistance (n=12) loads applied to the legs at the ankle. Participants underwent robotic treadmill training 3 times a week for 6 weeks (18 sessions). A controlled swing assistance/resistance load was applied to both legs starting from the toe-off to mid-swing phase of gait during training. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures consisted of overground walking speed, 6-minute walk distance, and Gross Motor Function Measure scores and were assessed pre and post 6 weeks of training and 8 weeks after the end of training. RESULTS: After 6 weeks of treadmill training in participants from the resistance training group, fast walking speed and 6-minute walk distance significantly improved (18% and 30% increases, respectively), and 6-minute walk distance was still significantly greater than that at baseline (35% increase) 8 weeks after the end of training. In contrast, overground gait speed and 6-minute walk distance had no significant changes after robotic assistance training. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study indicated that robotic resistance treadmill training is more effective than assistance training in improving locomotor function in children with CP.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether applying controlled resistance forces to the legs during the swing phase of gait may improve the efficacy of treadmill training as compared with applying controlled assistance forces in children with cerebral palsy (CP). DESIGN: Randomized controlled study. SETTING: Research unit of a rehabilitation hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Children with spastic CP (N=23; mean age, 10.6y; range, 6-14y; Gross Motor Function Classification System levels, I-IV). INTERVENTIONS:Participants were randomly assigned to receive controlled assistance (n=11) or resistance (n=12) loads applied to the legs at the ankle. Participants underwent robotic treadmill training 3 times a week for 6 weeks (18 sessions). A controlled swing assistance/resistance load was applied to both legs starting from the toe-off to mid-swing phase of gait during training. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures consisted of overground walking speed, 6-minute walk distance, and Gross Motor Function Measure scores and were assessed pre and post 6 weeks of training and 8 weeks after the end of training. RESULTS: After 6 weeks of treadmill training in participants from the resistance training group, fast walking speed and 6-minute walk distance significantly improved (18% and 30% increases, respectively), and 6-minute walk distance was still significantly greater than that at baseline (35% increase) 8 weeks after the end of training. In contrast, overground gait speed and 6-minute walk distance had no significant changes after robotic assistance training. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study indicated that robotic resistance treadmill training is more effective than assistance training in improving locomotor function in children with CP.
Authors: Martin Bax; Murray Goldstein; Peter Rosenbaum; Alan Leviton; Nigel Paneth; Bernard Dan; Bo Jacobsson; Diane Damiano Journal: Dev Med Child Neurol Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 5.449
Authors: Mariusz Drużbicki; Wojciech Rusek; Slawomir Snela; Joanna Dudek; Magdalena Szczepanik; Ewelina Zak; Jacek Durmala; Anna Czernuszenko; Marcin Bonikowski; Grzegorz Sobota Journal: J Rehabil Med Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 2.912
Authors: D Žarković; M Šorfová; J J Tufano; P Kutílek; S Vítečková; D Ravnik; K Groleger-Sršen; I Cikajlo; J Otáhal Journal: Physiol Res Date: 2021-12-31 Impact factor: 1.881
Authors: Benjamin C Conner; Nushka M Remec; Cassidy M Michaels; Chase W Wallace; Emily Andrisevic; Zachary F Lerner Journal: Gait Posture Date: 2021-10-25 Impact factor: 2.840
Authors: Rocío Llamas-Ramos; Juan Luis Sánchez-González; Inés Llamas-Ramos Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-04-22 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Edward Washabaugh; Jane Guo; Chih-Kang Chang; David Remy; Chandramouli Krishnan Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2018-06-21 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Edward P Washabaugh; Luis H Cubillos; Alexandra C Nelson; Belinda T Cargile; Edward S Claflin; Chandramouli Krishnan Journal: Gait Posture Date: 2021-09-20 Impact factor: 2.746