Sánchez CR, Montes CML, Rojano MD

Language: Spanish
References: 14
Page: 54-59
PDF size: 135.29 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of a kinesitherapeutic program with an electromechanical device in the recovery of gait in patients with stroke. Material and methods: 40 patients with a diagnosis of stroke with initial assessment ≥ 35 points in each of the index scale test motor and trunk control. They were randomly assigned to one of the two study groups, forming a Group A- Conventional physical therapy and Group B- Conventional physical therapy using a kinesitherapeutic electromechanical device (cycle ergometer Reck Motomed viva1). Patients were evaluated after 20 therapy sessions, with the index scale test motor and trunk control, and time, number of sessions of physical therapy, which was achieved the patient standing and gait. Results: We observed that treatment was effective in achieving clinical improvement in both groups at study end, but when comparing standing start time and start of the gait between the two groups were not statistically significant difference regarding the effectiveness of one or other rehabilitation treatment. Conclusions: The use of a conventional rehabilitation program will allow the patient to achieve clinical improvement within the first 3 months after the stroke without the use of electromechanical devices is critical in his recovery.

REFERENCES

1. Carmichael ST. Themes and Strategies for Studying the Biology of Stroke Recovery in the Poststroke Epoch. Stroke 2008; 39: 1380-1388.

2. Duncan P, Studenski S, Richards L, Gollub S, Lai SM, Reker D, Perera S et al. Randomized clinical trial of therapeutic exercise in subacute stroke. Stroke 2003; 34: 2173-2180.

3. Yan T, Hui-Chan CWY, Li LSW. Functional electrical stimulation improves motor recovery of the lower extremity and walking ability of subjects with first acute stroke: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Stroke 2005; 36: 80-85.

4. Wu C, Wong M, Lin K, Chen H. Effects of task goal and personal preference on seated reaching kinematics after stroke. Stroke 2001; 32: 70-76.

5. Mehrholz J, Werner C, Kugler J, Pohl M. Electromechanical-assisted training for walking after stroke [Protocol]. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006: (4).

6. Hesse, Mehrholz. Robot-assisted upper and lower limb rehabilitation after stroke. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2008; 105 (18): 330–6.

7. Duncan PW, Sullivan KJ, Behrman AL, Azen SP, Wu SS, Nadeau SE, Dobkin BH, Rose DK, Tilson JK. Protocol for the locomotor experience applied post-stroke (LEAPS) trial: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Neurol 2007; 7: 39.

8. Hesse S, Schmidt H, Werner C, Bardeleben A. Upper and lower extremity robotic devices for rehabilitation and for studying motor control. Current Opinion in Neurology 2003; 16 (6): 705-10.

9. Jorgensen H, Nakayama H, Raaschou H, Olsen T. Recovery of walking function in stroke patients: the Copenhagen stroke study. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1995; 76: 27-32.

10. Carr J, Shepherd R. Stroke Rehabilitation: Guidelines for exercises and training. London: Butterworth Heinemann, 2003.

11. Van Peppen RP, Kwakkel G, Wood-Dauphinee S, Hendriks HJ, Van der Wees PJ, Dekker J. The impact of physical therapy on functional outcomes after stroke: what’s the evidence? Clinical Rehabilitation 2004; 18 (8): 833-62.

12. Dias D, Laíns J, Pereira A, Nunes R, Caldas J, Amaral C et al. Partial body weight support in chronic hemiplegics: a randomized control trial. 6th Mediterranean Congress PRM 06, Vilamoura. 2006.

13. Husemann B, Müller F, Krewer C, LaB A, Gille C, Heller S, et al. Effects of locomotion training with assistance of a robot-driven gait orthosis in hemiparetic patients after stroke. A randomized controlled pilot study. Stroke 2007; 38 (2): 349-54.

14. Peurala S, Tarkka I, Pitkänen K, Sivenius J. The effectiveness of body weight-supported gait training and floor walking in patients with chronic stroke. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2005; 86: 1557-64.