| Literature DB >> 34867115 |
Abstract
To investigate the effect of intelligent exercise training equipment on lower limb function and standing stability of stroke patients with hemiplegia in clinical nursing of neurology department. Forty-eight stroke patients with a course of 1 to 3 months were randomly divided into treatment group and control group, with 24 cases in each group. The control group was treated with conventional rehabilitation training, and the treatment group was treated with intelligent training system, twice a day, 20 min each time. Lower extremity motor function (using the FMA-L scale) and walking function (using the functional walking scale FAC) were assessed before treatment and 4 weeks after treatment. The results showed that there was no statistical difference between the control group and the treatment group in the t-test of lower limb motor function scores before rehabilitation treatment (P > 0.05). After treatment, the lower extremity motor function scores of the two groups were tested by group design T-test, and the results showed that there was a significant difference between the two groups (P < 0.05); The effect of the treatment group was significantly better than that of the control group (P < 0.05). Intelligent exercise training equipment combined with routine rehabilitation therapy in clinical nursing of neurology department could improve the lower extremity motor function and walking ability of patients with convalescence stroke hemiplegia, and the effect was better than that of routine rehabilitation therapy alone.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34867115 PMCID: PMC8608505 DOI: 10.1155/2021/8432868
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging ISSN: 1555-4309 Impact factor: 3.161
Comparison of general data ().
| Group |
| Gender | Hemiplegia side | Stroke type | Course of the disease/d | Age | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Female | Left | Right | Cerebral hemorrhage | Cerebral infarction | ||||
| Treatment group | 24 | 18 | 6 | 10 | 14 | 10 | 14 | 29 ± 12.1 | 58.9 ± 9.8 |
| Control group | 24 | 17 | 7 | 13 | 11 | 11 | 13 | 30.2 ± 15.8 | 61.3 ± 9.1 |
FMA-L of the treatment group and control group before and after treatment.
| Group |
| Before treatment | After treatment |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment group | 24 | 9.21 ± 3.3 | 24.7 ± 4.9 | 18.63 |
| Control group | 24 | 10.58 ± 3.6 | 18.21 ± 3.7 | 16.11 |
Comparison of functional walking scale (FAC) scores between the treatment group and the control group before and after treatment (x ± S)/points.
| Group |
| Before treatment | After treatment |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment group | 24 | 1.5 ± 0.78 | 3.88 ± 0.68 | 20.20 |
| Control group | 24 | 1.63 ± 0.82 | 3.00 ± 0.72 | 9.475 |
Figure 1Walking effect of walking patients before and after treatment.
Correlation between FMA-L scale score and FAC scale in the treatment group and control group.
| Group | Before treatment | After treatment | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Treatment group | 0.632 | 0.000 | 0.455 | 0.026 |
| Control group | 0.794 | 0.000 | 0.653 | 0.001 |
Note. Correlation is significant when confidence (double test) is 0.01. Significant correlation was observed at the 0.05 level (bilateral).