| Literature DB >> 35010482 |
Patcharee Kooncumchoo1,2, Phuwarin Namdaeng1, Somrudee Hanmanop1, Bunyong Rungroungdouyboon2,3, Kultida Klarod4, Sirirat Kiatkulanusorn4, Nongnuch Luangpon4.
Abstract
Chronic stroke leads to the impairment of lower limb function and gait performance. After in-hospital rehabilitation, most individuals lack continuous gait training because of the limited number of physical therapists. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of a newly invented gait training machine (I-Walk) on lower limb function and gait performance in chronic stroke individuals. Thirty community-dwelling chronic stroke individuals were allocated to the I-Walk machine group (n = 15) or the overground gait training (control) group (n = 15). Both groups received 30 min of upper limb and hand movement and sit-to-stand training. After that, the I-Walk group received 30 min of I-Walk training, while the control followed a 30-minute overground training program. All the individuals were trained 3 days/week for 8 weeks. The primary outcome of the motor recovery of lower limb impairment was measured using the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA). The secondary outcomes for gait performance were the 6-minute walk test (6 MWT), the 10-meter walk test (10 MWT), and the Timed Up and Go (TUG). The two-way mixed-model ANOVA with the Bonferroni test was used to compare means within and between groups. The post-intervention motor and sensory subscales of the FMA significantly increased compared to the baseline in both groups. Moreover, the 6 MWT and 10 MWT values also improved in both groups. In addition, the mean difference of TUG in the I-Walk was higher than the control. The efficiency of I-Walk training was comparable to overground training and might be applied for chronic stroke gait training in the community.Entities:
Keywords: gait training; lower limb impairment; motor recovery; stroke
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 35010482 PMCID: PMC8750435 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19010224
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Flowchart representing the number of patients throughout the trial measures.
Figure 2PT rehabilitation program with I-Walk machine.
General characteristics in conventional PT and I-Walk gait training in chronic stroke.
| Characteristics | Mean ± SD/Frequency | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| I-Walk ( | Conventional PT ( | ||
| Age (years) | 64.33 ± 7.68 | 63.53 ± 12.16 | 0.709 |
| Weight (kg) | 61.94 ± 9.27 | 61.73 ± 12.63 | 0.631 |
| Height (cm) | 163.07 ± 8.70 | 162.33 ± 8.46 | 0.988 |
| Duration after stroke (years) | 6.57 ± 3.57 | 5.60 ± 5.65 | 0.580 |
| 10 MWT (m/s) | 0.48 ± 0.19 | 0.41 ± 0.17 | 0.315 |
| 6 MWT (m) | 126.73 ± 57.61 | 116.33 ± 55.69 | 0.619 |
| TUG (s) | 27.79 ± 16.31 | 32.50 ± 18.04 | 0.460 |
| Total FMA-LE (scores) | 85.60 ± 10.15 | 93.00 ± 11.62 | 0.074 |
| Sex (Male:Female) | 10:5 | 10:5 | |
| Pathology (Ischemia:Hemorrhage) | 11:4 | 13:2 | |
| Weak side (Right:Left) | 7:8 | 7:8 | |
| Underlying diseases | 0:7:3:5 | 1:2:6:6 | |
PT: Physical therapy, 10 MWT: 10-meter walk test, 6 MWT: 6-minute walk test, TUG: Timed Up and Go, FMA-LE: Fugl-Meyer assessment of lower extremity.
Changes of lower extremity impairment scores during 8-week gait training compared within (compared with baseline) and across groups (Conventional PT and I-Walk) in chronic stroke.
| Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Lower Extremity (Scores) | I-Walk ( | Conventional PT ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | ||||
|
| |||||
| baseline | 71.00 ± 6.72 | 66.60 ± 6.71 | 0.083 | ||
| 2-week | 72.67 ± 6.32 | 0.012 | 70.20 ± 4.55 | 0.002 | 0.230 |
| 4-week | 74.60 ± 5.44 | <0.001 | 72.20 ± 4.96 | <0.001 | 0.217 |
| 6-week | 77.20 ± 5.89 | <0.001 | 74.53 ± 4.60 | <0.001 | 0.177 |
| 8-week | 78.67 ± 5.45 | <0.001 | 75.73 ± 4.43 | <0.001 | 0.117 |
|
| |||||
| baseline | 18.40 ± 4.14 | 15.60 ± 2.92 | 0.042 | ||
| 2-week | 19.26 ± 4.06 | 0.039 | 17.73 ± 2.05 | <0.001 | 0.202 |
| 4-week | 20.26 ± 3.57 | <0.001 | 18.60 ± 1.99 | <0.001 | 0.126 |
| 6-week | 22.00 ± 3.25 | <0.001 | 20.13 ± 2.55 | <0.001 | 0.092 |
| 8-week | 23.06 ± 3.01 | <0.001 | 20.86 ± 2.66 | <0.001 | 0.043 |
|
| |||||
| baseline | 3.60 ± 1.40 | 3.40 ± 1.18 | 0.676 | ||
| 2-week | 3.66 ± 1.34 | 0.543 | 3.40 ± 1.24 | 1.000 | 0.577 |
| 4-week | 4.13 ± 1.24 | 0.039 | 3.93 ± 1.62 | 0.039 | 0.708 |
| 6-week | 4.60 ± 1.24 | 0.001 | 4.26 ± 1.33 | 0.004 | 0.485 |
| 8-week | 4.93 ± 1.27 | <0.001 | 4.60 ± 1.18 | <0.001 | 0.465 |
|
| |||||
| baseline | 22.00 ± 5.07 | 19.33 ± 3.81 | 0.115 | ||
| 2-week | 22.93 ± 4.93 | 0.042 | 21.20 ± 2.78 | <0.001 | 0.246 |
| 4-week | 24.40 ± 4.35 | <0.001 | 22.53 ± 2.99 | <0.001 | 0.182 |
| 6-week | 26.60 ± 4.18 | <0.001 | 24.40 ± 3.24 | <0.001 | 0.119 |
| 8-week | 28.00 ± 4.00 | <0.001 | 25.46 ± 3.33 | <0.001 | 0.070 |
|
| |||||
| baseline | 9.93 ± 2.31 | 9.40 ± 3.11 | 0.598 | ||
| 2-week | 10.60 ± 2.41 | 0.053 | 10.20 ± 2.59 | 0.022 | 0.666 |
| 4-week | 10.86 ± 2.19 | 0.014 | 10.40 ± 2.50 | 0.009 | 0.592 |
| 6-week | 11.00 ± 2.23 | 0.006 | 10.80 ± 1.82 | 0.001 | 0.790 |
| 8-week | 11.00 ± 2.23 | 0.008 | 10.86 ± 1.72 | 0.001 | 0.856 |
|
| |||||
| baseline | 19.33 ± 0.81 | 18.06 ± 0.96 | 0.001 | ||
| 2-week | 19.26 ± 0.88 | 0.630 | 18.80 ± 0.86 | <0.001 | 0.154 |
| 4-week | 19.40 ± 0.73 | 0.749 | 19.33 ± 0.72 | <0.001 | 0.804 |
| 6-week | 19.66 ± 0.40 | 0.140 | 19.33 ± 0.72 | <0.001 | 0.150 |
| 8-week | 19.73 ± 0.45 | 0.098 | 19.40 ± 0.73 | <0.001 | 0.148 |
|
| |||||
| baseline | 19.73 ± 0.59 | 19.80 ± 0.56 | 0.754 | ||
| 2-week | 19.86 ± 0.35 | 0.346 | 20.00 ± 0.00 | 0.162 | 0.153 |
| 4-week | 19.93 ± 0.25 | 0.162 | 19.93 ± 0.25 | 0.346 | 1.000 |
| 6-week | 19.93 ± 0.25 | 0.178 | 20.00 ± 0.00 | 0.178 | 0.326 |
| 8-week | 19.93 ± 0.25 | 0.178 | 20.00 ± 0.00 | 0.178 | 0.326 |
FMA-LE, Fugl-Meyer Assessment-lower extremity; PT = Physical Therapy. Data are presented as Mean ± SD. p-values from t-test.
Figure 3Gait performance, dynamic balance, and gait speed changes after gait trainings for 8 weeks. (A) 6 min distance. (B) Timed up and go. (C) Gait speed. Data are presented as Mean ± SD. * p < 0.01, ** p < 0.001, *** p < 0.0001 (significant difference from baseline value). # (significant difference between treatment groups).