Effectiveness of gait training using an electromechanical gait trainer, with and without functional electric stimulation, in subacute stroke: A randomized controlled trial

被引:122
作者
Tong, Raymond K.
Ng, Maple F.
Li, Leonard S.
机构
[1] Hong Kong Polytech Univ, Dept Hlth Technol & Informat, Kowloon, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
[2] Tung Wah Hosp, Rehabil Unit, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
[3] Tung Wah Hosp, Physiotherapy Dept, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
来源
ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION | 2006年 / 87卷 / 10期
关键词
electric stimulation; exercise; gait; rehabilitation; stroke;
D O I
10.1016/j.apmr.2006.06.016
中图分类号
R49 [康复医学];
学科分类号
100215 ;
摘要
Objective: To compare the therapeutic effects of conventional git training (CGT), gait training using an electromechanical gait trainer (EGT), and gait training using an electromechanical gait trainer with functional electric stimulation (EGT-FES) in people with subacute stroke. Design: Nonblinded randomized controlled trial. Setting: Rehabilitation hospital for adults. Participants: Fifty patients were recruited within 6 weeks after stroke onset; 46 of these completed the 4-week training period. Intervention: Participants were randomly assigned to I of 3 gait intervention groups: CGT, EGT, or EGT-FES. The experimental intervention was a 20-minute session per day, 5 days a week (weekdays) for 4 weeks. In addition, all participants received their 40-minute sessions of regular physical therapy every weekday as part of their treatment by the hospital. Main Outcome Measures: Five-meter walking speed test, Elderly Mobility Scale (EMS), Berg Balance Scale, Functional Ambulatory Category (FAC), Motricity Index leg subscale, FIM instrument score, and Barthel Index. Results: The EGT and EGT-FES groups had statistically significantly more improvement than the CGT group in the 5-m walking speed test (CGT vs EGT, P=.01; CGT vs EGT-FES, P=.001), Motricity Index (CGT vs EGT-FES, P=.01), EMS (CGT vs EGT, P=.006; CGT vs EGT-FES, P=.009), and FAC (CGT vs EGT, P=.005; CGT vs EGT-FES, P=.002) after the 4 weeks of training. No statistically significant differences were found between the EGT and EGT-FES groups in all outcome measures. Conclusions: In this sample with subacute stroke, participants who trained on the electromechanical gait trainer with body-weight support, with or without FES, had a faster gait, better mobility, and improvement in functional ambulation than participants who underwent conventional gait training. Future studies with assessor blinding and larger sample sizes are warranted.
引用
收藏
页码:1298 / 1304
页数:7
相关论文
共 40 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1997, Canadian J Rehabilitation
[2]  
BERG K, 1989, Physiotherapy Canada, V41, P304
[3]   The effects of common peroneal stimulation on the effort and speed of walking: a randomized controlled trial with chronic hemiplegic patients [J].
Burridge, JH ;
Taylor, PN ;
Hagan, SA ;
Wood, DE ;
Swain, ID .
CLINICAL REHABILITATION, 1997, 11 (03) :201-210
[4]   Criterion validity of lower extremity Motricity Index scores [J].
Cameron, D ;
Bohannon, RW .
CLINICAL REHABILITATION, 2000, 14 (02) :208-211
[5]  
CLIFFORD JC, 1986, CAN FAM PHYSICIAN, V32, P605
[6]  
Collen F M, 1990, Int Disabil Stud, V12, P6
[7]   Gait outcomes after acute stroke rehabilitation with supported treadmill ambulation training: A randomized controlled pilot study [J].
da Cunha, IT ;
Lim, PA ;
Qureshy, H ;
Henson, H ;
Monga, T ;
Protas, EJ .
ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION, 2002, 83 (09) :1258-1265
[8]  
Daly J J, 1996, IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng, V4, P218, DOI 10.1109/86.547922
[9]   MOTOR EVALUATION IN VASCULAR HEMIPLEGIA [J].
DEMEURISSE, G ;
DEMOL, O ;
ROBAYE, E .
EUROPEAN NEUROLOGY, 1980, 19 (06) :382-389
[10]  
Friedman P J, 1990, Int Disabil Stud, V12, P119