BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Impaired sitting balance is an important and time-consuming complication for stroke patients. We examined the effect of the use of an angular biofeedback device in addition to physical therapy in training stroke patients with impaired sitting balance compared with outcome in patients receiving conventional physical therapy only. METHODS: The biofeedback group consisted of 24 patients who received angular biofeedback training in addition to conventional physical therapy. The number of biofeedback signals and the lengths of time a patient could sit balanced throughout a period of 5 minutes before the training program, after 10 days of treatment, and at discharge were recorded and compared with those of the control group of 13 patients who received conventional physical therapy only. RESULTS: It was found that 75% of the biofeedback group gained sitting balance after 10 days of treatment in comparison with 15.4% of the control group (P < .001). At discharge, 91.6% of the biofeedback group and 84.6% of the control group gained sitting balance (P = .510), and 45.8% of the biofeedback group and 46.2% of the control group managed independent ambulation (P = .985). The mean rehabilitation periods among the ambulatory patients of the biofeedback and control groups were 9.45 +/- 0.71 and 13.83 +/- 1.70 weeks, respectively (P = .049). The mean training time in which the biofeedback group gained sitting balance was significantly shorter than that of the control group (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS:Angular biofeedback intervention, by providing earlier postural trunk control, is a useful adjunct to conventional physical therapy in the rehabilitation of stroke patients with impaired sitting balance.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Impaired sitting balance is an important and time-consuming complication for strokepatients. We examined the effect of the use of an angular biofeedback device in addition to physical therapy in training strokepatients with impaired sitting balance compared with outcome in patients receiving conventional physical therapy only. METHODS: The biofeedback group consisted of 24 patients who received angular biofeedback training in addition to conventional physical therapy. The number of biofeedback signals and the lengths of time a patient could sit balanced throughout a period of 5 minutes before the training program, after 10 days of treatment, and at discharge were recorded and compared with those of the control group of 13 patients who received conventional physical therapy only. RESULTS: It was found that 75% of the biofeedback group gained sitting balance after 10 days of treatment in comparison with 15.4% of the control group (P < .001). At discharge, 91.6% of the biofeedback group and 84.6% of the control group gained sitting balance (P = .510), and 45.8% of the biofeedback group and 46.2% of the control group managed independent ambulation (P = .985). The mean rehabilitation periods among the ambulatory patients of the biofeedback and control groups were 9.45 +/- 0.71 and 13.83 +/- 1.70 weeks, respectively (P = .049). The mean training time in which the biofeedback group gained sitting balance was significantly shorter than that of the control group (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Angular biofeedback intervention, by providing earlier postural trunk control, is a useful adjunct to conventional physical therapy in the rehabilitation of strokepatients with impaired sitting balance.