4.5 Article

LONG-TERM BENEFITS OF PROGRESSIVE RESISTANCE TRAINING IN CHRONIC STROKE: A 4-YEAR FOLLOW-UP

期刊

JOURNAL OF REHABILITATION MEDICINE
卷 44, 期 3, 页码 218-221

出版社

FOUNDATION REHABILITATION INFORMATION
DOI: 10.2340/16501977-0936

关键词

cerebrovascular accident; muscle; skeletal; strength training; gait; follow-up

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council on Social Science and Working Life
  2. Swedish Stroke Association

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To evaluate the long-term benefits of progressive resistance training in chronic stroke. Design: A 4-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of progressive resistance training. Subjects: Eighteen women and men (mean age 66 (standard deviation 4) from the original group of 24 post-stroke participants. Methods: The training group (n=11) had participated in supervised progressive resistance training of the knee extensors and flexors (80% of maximum) twice weekly for 10 weeks, whereas the control group (n=7) had continued their usual daily activities. Muscle strength was evaluated isotonically and isokinetically (60 degrees/s; Biodex), muscle tone with the Modified Ashworth Scale, gait performance by the Timed Up and Go test, the Fast Gait Speed test and 6-Minute Walk test, and perceived participation with the Stroke Impact Scale (Participation domain). Results: Four years after the intervention, the improvements in muscle strength in the training group were maintained, and there was no reduction in strength in the control group. Compared with baseline there were still significant between-group differences for both isotonic and isokinetic strength. No significant between-group differences were found in muscle tone, gait performance or perceived participation. Conclusion: The results indicate that there is a long-term benefit of progressive resistance training in chronic stroke. This implies that progressive resistance training could be an effective training method to improve and maintain muscle strength in a long-term perspective.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据