BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Falls commonly occur as weight is transferred laterally, and impaired reactive stepping responses are associated with falls after stroke. The purpose of this study was to examine differences in and the determinants of mediolateral (M-L) protective stepping strategies when pulled off balance toward the paretic and nonparetic sides. METHODS: Eighteen individuals more than 6 months poststroke were pulled in the M-L direction by a lateral waist-pull perturbation system. Step type (crossover, medial, and lateral) and count were recorded, along with first-step initiation time, length, and clearance. Sensorimotor variables including hip adductor/abductor and ankle plantar flexor/dorsiflexor peak isokinetic torques, paretic foot plantar cutaneous sensation, and motor recovery were used to predict step type by discriminant function analyses (DFAs). RESULTS: Regardless of pull direction, nearly 70% of trials required 2 or more recovery steps, with more frequent nonparetic leg first steps, 63.5%. The step type was significantly different for pull direction (P = 0.005), with a greater percentage of lateral steps when pulled toward the nonparetic side (45.1%) compared with the paretic side (17.5%). The M-L step length of the lateral step was increased (P < 0.001), with a reduced step clearance (P = 0.05), when pulled toward the paretic side compared with a pull toward the nonparetic side. DFAs revealed that nonparetic and paretic-side pulls could respectively classify step type 64% and 60% of the time, with foot cutaneous sensation discriminating for pull direction. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Balance recovery initiated with the nonparetic leg occurred more frequently in response to M-L perturbations, and paretic foot cutaneous sensation was an important predictor of the stepping response regardless of the pull direction.Video Abstract available for more insights from the authors (see Video, Supplementary Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A190).
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Falls commonly occur as weight is transferred laterally, and impaired reactive stepping responses are associated with falls after stroke. The purpose of this study was to examine differences in and the determinants of mediolateral (M-L) protective stepping strategies when pulled off balance toward the paretic and nonparetic sides. METHODS: Eighteen individuals more than 6 months poststroke were pulled in the M-L direction by a lateral waist-pull perturbation system. Step type (crossover, medial, and lateral) and count were recorded, along with first-step initiation time, length, and clearance. Sensorimotor variables including hip adductor/abductor and ankle plantar flexor/dorsiflexor peak isokinetic torques, paretic foot plantar cutaneous sensation, and motor recovery were used to predict step type by discriminant function analyses (DFAs). RESULTS: Regardless of pull direction, nearly 70% of trials required 2 or more recovery steps, with more frequent nonparetic leg first steps, 63.5%. The step type was significantly different for pull direction (P = 0.005), with a greater percentage of lateral steps when pulled toward the nonparetic side (45.1%) compared with the paretic side (17.5%). The M-L step length of the lateral step was increased (P < 0.001), with a reduced step clearance (P = 0.05), when pulled toward the paretic side compared with a pull toward the nonparetic side. DFAs revealed that nonparetic and paretic-side pulls could respectively classify step type 64% and 60% of the time, with foot cutaneous sensation discriminating for pull direction. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Balance recovery initiated with the nonparetic leg occurred more frequently in response to M-L perturbations, and paretic foot cutaneous sensation was an important predictor of the stepping response regardless of the pull direction.Video Abstract available for more insights from the authors (see Video, Supplementary Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A190).
Authors: Don A Yungher; Judith Morgia; Woei-Nan Bair; Mario Inacio; Brock A Beamer; Michelle G Prettyman; Mark W Rogers Journal: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) Date: 2011-10-15 Impact factor: 2.063
Authors: Avril Mansfield; Elizabeth L Inness; Jennifer S Wong; Julia E Fraser; William E McIlroy Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2013-03-15 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: C Gowland; P Stratford; M Ward; J Moreland; W Torresin; S Van Hullenaar; J Sanford; S Barreca; B Vanspall; N Plews Journal: Stroke Date: 1993-01 Impact factor: 7.914