http://www.jneuroengrehab.com/content/12/1/70
1 MOVE
Research Institute Amsterdam, Department of Human Movement Sciences,
Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, VU University Amsterdam,
van der Boechorststraat 9, Amsterdam, 1081 BT, The Netherlands
2 Heliomare Rehabilitation, Research and Development, Relweg 51, Wijk aan Zee, 1949 EC, The Netherlands
3 University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Center for Human Movement Sciences, Center for Rehabilitation, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, Groningen, 9713AV, The Netherlands
2 Heliomare Rehabilitation, Research and Development, Relweg 51, Wijk aan Zee, 1949 EC, The Netherlands
3 University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Center for Human Movement Sciences, Center for Rehabilitation, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, Groningen, 9713AV, The Netherlands
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation 2015, 12:70
doi:10.1186/s12984-015-0051-3
The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://www.jneuroengrehab.com/content/12/1/70
The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://www.jneuroengrehab.com/content/12/1/70
Received: | 5 February 2015 |
Accepted: | 26 June 2015 |
Published: | 23 August 2015 |
© 2015 IJmker et al.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Abstract
Background
Holding a handrail or using a cane may decrease the energy cost of walking in stroke
survivors. However, the factors underlying this decrease have not yet been previously
identified. The purpose of the current study was to fill this void by investigating
the effect of physical support (through handrail hold) and/or somatosensory input
(through light touch contact with a handrail) on energy cost and accompanying changes
in both step parameters and neuromuscular activity. Elucidating these aspects may
provide useful insights into gait recovery post stroke.
Methods
Fifteen stroke survivors participated in this study. Participants walked on a treadmill
under three conditions: no handrail contact, light touch of the handrail, and firm
handrail hold. During the trials we recorded oxygen consumption, center of pressure
profiles, and bilateral activation of eight lower limb muscles. Effects of the three
conditions on energy cost, step parameters and neuromuscular activation were compared
statistically using conventional ANOVAs with repeated measures. In order to examine
to which extent energy cost and step parameters/muscle activity are associated, we
further employed a partial least squares regression analysis.
Results
Handrail hold resulted in a significant reduction in energy cost, whereas light touch
contact did not. With handrail hold subjects took longer steps with smaller step width
and improved step length symmetry, whereas light touch contact only resulted in a
small but significant decrease in step width. The EMG analysis indicated a global
drop in muscle activity, accompanied by an increased constancy in the timing of this
activity, and a decreased co-activation with handrail hold, but not with light touch.
The regression analysis revealed that increased stride time and length, improved step
length symmetry, and decreased muscle activity were closely associated with the decreased
energy cost during handrail hold.
Conclusion
Handrail hold, but not light touch, altered step parameters and was accompanied by
a global reduction in muscle activity, with improved timing constancy. This suggests
that the use of a handrail allows for a more economic step pattern that requires less
muscular activation without resulting in substantial neuromuscular re-organization.
Handrail use may thus have beneficial effects on gait economy after stroke, which
cannot be accomplished through enhanced somatosensory input alone.
No comments:
Post a Comment