4.5 Article

Effects of gait training with a cane and an augmented pressure sensor for enhancement of weight bearing over the affected lower limb in patients with stroke: a randomized controlled pilot study

期刊

CLINICAL REHABILITATION
卷 29, 期 2, 页码 135-142

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0269215514540923

关键词

Biofeedback; cane; gait; pressure sensor; stroke

资金

  1. Sahmyook University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of gait training when using a cane with an augmented pressure sensor for enhancement of weight-bearing over the affected lower limb on the peak pressure force of the cane, muscle activation, and gait in patients with stroke. Design: Randomized controlled pilot study. Setting: Inpatient rehabilitation center. Participants: A total of 22 hemiparetic stroke patients were recruited and randomly divided into an experimental group (n = 11) and control group, which later had a drop-out (n = 10). Interventions: Subjects in the experimental group participated in gait training with auditory feedback for 30 minutes, five times a week for four weeks, whereas those in the control group received gait training without auditory feedback for the same amount of time. Main measures: The peak force of cane, muscle activation of gluteus medius, and vastus medialis oblique, single limb support phase of the affected leg, and gait speed before and after training were collected. Results: Significant improvement in the peak force of cane, muscle activation of gluteus medius and vastus medialis oblique, single limb support phase of the affected leg, and gait speed were observed in the experimental group (13.5 9.5 cm/s) compared with the control group (3.7 +/- 8.4 cm/s) (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Gait training using a cane with an augmented pressure sensor to enhance weight bearing over the affected lower limb is beneficial and effective in improving the peak force of cane, muscle activation, and gait in stroke patients.

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