| Literature DB >> 29545679 |
Mayumi Matsuda1,2, Yuki Mataki3, Hirotaka Mutsuzaki2,4, Kenichi Yoshikawa1, Kazushi Takahashi1, Keiko Enomoto1, Kumiko Sano1, Masafumi Mizukami2,5, Kazuhide Tomita2,5, Haruka Ohguro6, Nobuaki Iwasaki2,4,6.
Abstract
[Purpose] Robot-assisted gait training (RAGT) using Hybrid Assistive Limb (HAL, CYBERDYNE) was previously reported beneficial for stroke and spinal cord injury patients. Here, we investigate the immediate effect of a single session of RAGT using HAL on gait function for cerebral palsy (CP) patients.Entities:
Keywords: Cerebral palsy; Hybrid Assistive Limb; Robot-assisted gait training
Year: 2018 PMID: 29545679 PMCID: PMC5851348 DOI: 10.1589/jpts.30.207
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Phys Ther Sci ISSN: 0915-5287
Characteristics
| Case | Gender | Age | High(cm) | Weight(kg) | Etiology | Movementdisordor | Paralysis | GMFCS | Assistive device | Orthosis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | M | 37 | 165 | 51 | PVL | spactic | Diplegia | II | clutch | AFO |
| 2 | M | 20 | 168 | 64 | PVL | spactic | Diplegia | IV | parallel bars | AFO |
| 3 | F | 19 | 152 | 40 | PVL | spactic | Diplegia | II | NA | NA |
| 4 | M | 16 | 153 | 49 | PVL | spactic | Diplegia | III | walker | AFO |
| 5 | F | 15 | 143 | 35 | PVL | spactic | Diplegia | II | clutch | AFO |
| 6 | F | 15 | 141 | 48 | PVL | spactic | Diplegia | III | walker | AFO |
| 7 | M | 15 | 158 | 43 | PVL | spactic | Diplegia | III | walker | AFO |
| 8 | M | 14 | 153 | 37 | PVL | spactic | Quadriplegia | IV | BS walker | AFO |
| 9 | M | 12 | 138 | 27 | PVL | spactic | Diplegia | III | walker | AFO |
| 10 | F | 11 | 137 | 35 | PVL | spactic | Diplegia | III | walker | AFO |
| 11 | M | 11 | 132 | 32 | PVL | spactic | R hemiplegia | I | NA | R AFO |
| 12 | M | 9 | 134 | 28 | PVL | spactic | R hemiplegia | I | NA | R AFO |
M: male; F: female; PVL: Periventricular Leukomalacia; GMFCS: Gross Motor Function Classification System; NA: not applicable; BS walker: body support walker; AFO: ankle foot orthosis.
Comparison of gait function before and during HAL intervention
| Outcome measurements | before HAL | during HAL |
|---|---|---|
| Gait speed (m/s) | 0.8 ± 0.4 | 0.3 ± 0.2** |
| Stride length (m) | 0.5 ± 0.1 | 0.4 ± 0.1* |
| Cadence (step/min) | 92.4 ± 35.9 | 55.1 ± 17.5** |
| Single-leg support phase (%) | 64.5 ± 15.8 | 57.2 ± 15.4 |
| Hip angle of stance phase (°) | 149.2 ± 19.0 | 153.3 ± 17.7 |
| Knee angle of stance phase (°) | 137.6 ± 20.2 | 144.8 ± 18.9 |
| Hip angle of swing phase (°) | 137.2 ± 14.6 | 129.2 ± 13.9 |
| Knee angle of swing phase (°) | 112.0 ± 15.5 | 117.2 ± 18.6 |
*p<0.05, **p<0.01.
Comparison of gait function before and after HAL intervention
| Outcome measurements | before HAL | after HAL |
|---|---|---|
| Gait speed (m/s) | 0.8 ± 0.4 | 0.8 ± 0.5 |
| Stride length (m) | 0.5 ± 0.1 | 0.5 ± 0.1 |
| Cadence (step/min) | 92.4 ± 35.9 | 92.4 ± 40.0 |
| Single-leg support phase (%) | 64.5 ± 15.8 | 69.3 ± 12.1* |
| Hip angle of stance phase (°) | 149.2 ± 19.0 | 155.7 ± 20.1* |
| Knee angle of stance phase (°) | 137.6 ± 20.2 | 143.1 ± 19.5* |
| Hip angle of swing phase (°) | 137.2 ± 14.6 | 129.7 ± 16.6 |
| Knee angle of swing phase (°) | 112.0 ± 15.5 | 105.2 ± 17.1* |
*p<0.05, **p<0.01.