| Literature DB >> 35883930 |
Hanaa Mohsen Abd-Elfattah1, Fairouz Hatem Ameen2, Reham Alaa Elkalla3, Sobhy M Aly4, Noha Ahmed Fouad Abd-Elrahman5.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study's objective was to see how loaded functional strengthening exercises using a plantigrade foot position and a shoe supporter affected muscle strength and walking ability in spastic hemiplegic children.Entities:
Keywords: cerebral palsy; hemiplegia; loaded functional strength training
Year: 2022 PMID: 35883930 PMCID: PMC9319924 DOI: 10.3390/children9070946
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Children (Basel) ISSN: 2227-9067
Figure 1Children’s consort flow diagram.
Figure 2Shoe supporter.
Figure 3Forward step-up exercise.
Weekly training and timing of the 8 RM.
| Week | Goal | Load |
|---|---|---|
| 1–2 | Getting child oriented with training program. | BW |
| 3–4 | Determining initial starting position for different exercises. | 5–10% BW |
| 5 | Gradually building up training intensity. | 50% of 8RM |
| 6 | Gradually increasing training intensity. | 60% of 8RM |
| 7–12 | Developing strength training. | 75% of 8RM |
Participant characteristics.
| Parameter | Control Group | Intervention Group | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years), Mean ± SD | 11.11 ± 0.63 | 11.31 ± 0.62 | 0.18 a |
| Weight (kg), Mean ± SD | 37.12 ± 2.83 | 38.31 ± 3.93 | 0.14 a |
| Height (cm), Mean ± SD | 143.41 ± 4.21 | 142.55 ± 4.1 | 0.38 a |
| Sex, | |||
| Girls | 13 (39.4%) | 11 (33.3%) | 0.61 b |
| Boys | 20 (60.6%) | 22 (66.7%) | |
| Spasticity grades, | |||
| Grade I | 10 (30.3%) | 8 (24.2%) | 0.58 b |
| Grade I+ | 23 (69.7%) | 25 (75.8%) | |
| GMFCS, | |||
| Level I | 13 (39.4%) | 10 (30.3%) | 0.43 b |
| Level II | 20 (60.6%) | 23 (69.7%) | |
SD, standard deviation; p value, level of significance; a, t test; b, chi square test.
Mean values of hip and knee extensors strength and 6MWD pre- and post-treatment of control and intervention groups.
| Parameter | Control Group | Intervention Group | MD | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | |||
| Hip extensor strength (kg) | ||||
| Pre-treatment | 3.22 ± 0.54 | 3.33 ± 0.65 | −0.11 | 0.44 NS |
| Post-treatment | 4.87 ± 0.66 | 5.39 ± 0.67 | −0.52 | 0.002 S |
| MD (% of change) | −1.65 (51.24%) | −2.06 (61.86%) | ||
| Knee extensor strength (kg) | ||||
| Pre-treatment | 3.96 ± 0.56 | 4.12 ± 0.58 | −0.16 | 0.25 NS |
| Post-treatment | 5.32 ± 0.61 | 6 ± 0.71 | −0.68 | 0.001 S |
| MD (% of change) | −1.36 (34.34) | −1.88 (45.63) | ||
| 6MWD (m) | ||||
| Pre-treatment | 274.69 ± 5.98 | 276.66 ± 7.97 | −1.97 | 0.26 NS |
| Post-treatment | 301.3 ± 3.73 | 332.24 ± 6.59 | −30.94 | 0.001 S |
| MD (% of change) | −26.61 (9.69%) | −55.58 (20.09%) | ||
SD, standard deviation; MD, mean difference; p-value, probability value, NS p > 0.05 = non-significant, S p < 0.05 = significant.