Saturday, October 14, 2017

Proposition of a classification of adult patients with hemiparesis in chronic phase

Fucking useless. Classification but no mapping of stroke protocols to those classifications to get to full recovery of walking.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877065717303652



Objective

Patients who have developed hemiparesis after central nervous system lesion often experience reduced walking capacity. Related gait abnormalities at hip, knee, and ankle joints during swing induce decreased foot clearance and increased risk of falls, and thus need a meticulous management. This study aimed to (1) propose a classification focusing on these abnormalities for adult patients with hemiparesis, (2) evaluate its discriminatory capacity using clinical gait analysis (CGA).

Material/patients and methods

Twenty-six patients (10 women, 16 men) with hemiparesis (13 left, 13 right) in chronic phase (i.e. hemiparesis more than 6 months old) were included in this study. Clinical examination (i.e. passive range of motion, muscle weakness, and spasticity) and video records were conducted on each patient. The following classification was then applied: group I (GI) was mainly characterized by a decreased ankle dorsiflexion during swing, group II (GII) and group III (GIII) by a decreased knee flexion during swing, completed by a reduced range of hip motion and a hip flexors weakness in GIII. Subdivisions were also applied on each group to describe (a) absence or (b) presence of genu recurvatum during stance. The discriminatory capacity of the classification was then evaluated. For that, all patients were instrumented with cutaneous reflective markers and at least 5 gait cycles were recorded using optoelectronic cameras (OQUS, Qualisys, Sweden). A statistical analysis (ANOVA) was then performed between each group and subgroup on 24 kinematic parameters and walking speed.

Results

Only one patient could not be classified, 5 were classified in GI (1 GIa, 4 GIb), 15 in GII (7 GIIa, 8 GIIb), and 5 in GIII (1 GIIIa, 4 GIIIb). When subgroups (a) and (b) were combined, 16 of the 25 assessed parameters revealed a statistically significant difference (P-level < 0.05) between at least two groups. In particular, the maximum knee flexion in swing and the total amplitude of hip flexion-extension were significantly different between groups.

Discussion – conclusion

This classification can be performed in regular clinical practice (using clinical evaluation and video records). It should thus ease the development of clinical management algorithms and the efficiency assessment of related therapies.

Keywords

Gait abnormalities
Clinical gait analysis
Classification
Central nervous system lesion

Choose an option to locate/access this article:

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution.

No comments:

Post a Comment