Tong Raymond K, Ng Maple F, Li Leonard S
Department of Health Technology and Informatics, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006 Oct;87(10):1298-304. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.06.016.
To compare the therapeutic effects of conventional gait training (CGT), gait training using an electromechanical gait trainer (EGT), and gait training using an electromechanical gait trainer with functional electric stimulation (EGT-FES) in people with subacute stroke.
Nonblinded randomized controlled trial.
Rehabilitation hospital for adults.
Fifty patients were recruited within 6 weeks after stroke onset; 46 of these completed the 4-week training period.
Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 gait intervention groups: CGT, EGT, or EGT-FES. The experimental intervention was a 20-minute session per day, 5 days a week (weekdays) for 4 weeks. In addition, all participants received their 40-minute sessions of regular physical therapy every weekday as part of their treatment by the hospital.
Five-meter walking speed test, Elderly Mobility Scale (EMS), Berg Balance Scale, Functional Ambulatory Category (FAC), Motricity Index leg subscale, FIM instrument score, and Barthel Index.
The EGT and EGT-FES groups had statistically significantly more improvement than the CGT group in the 5-m walking speed test (CGT vs EGT, P=.011; CGT vs EGT-FES, P=.001), Motricity Index (CGT vs EGT-FES, P=.011), EMS (CGT vs EGT, P=.006; CGT vs EGT-FES, P=.009), and FAC (CGT vs EGT, P=.005; CGT vs EGT-FES, P=.002) after the 4 weeks of training. No statistically significant differences were found between the EGT and EGT-FES groups in all outcome measures.
In this sample with subacute stroke, participants who trained on the electromechanical gait trainer with body-weight support, with or without FES, had a faster gait, better mobility, and improvement in functional ambulation than participants who underwent conventional gait training. Future studies with assessor blinding and larger sample sizes are warranted.
比较传统步态训练(CGT)、使用机电步态训练器的步态训练(EGT)以及使用带有功能性电刺激的机电步态训练器的步态训练(EGT-FES)对亚急性中风患者的治疗效果。
非盲随机对照试验。
成人康复医院。
在中风发作后6周内招募了50名患者;其中46名完成了为期4周的训练期。
参与者被随机分配到3个步态干预组中的1组:CGT、EGT或EGT-FES。实验干预为每天20分钟,每周5天(工作日),共4周。此外,所有参与者作为医院治疗的一部分,每个工作日接受40分钟的常规物理治疗。
5米步行速度测试、老年人活动量表(EMS)、伯格平衡量表、功能性步行分类(FAC)、下肢运动指数子量表、FIM工具评分和巴氏指数。
在4周训练后,EGT组和EGT-FES组在5米步行速度测试(CGT与EGT,P = 0.011;CGT与EGT-FES,P = 0.001)、运动指数(CGT与EGT-FES,P = 0.011)、EMS(CGT与EGT,P = 0.006;CGT与EGT-FES,P = 0.009)和FAC(CGT与EGT,P = 0.005;CGT与EGT-FES,P = 0.002)方面的改善在统计学上显著高于CGT组。在所有观察指标上,EGT组和EGT-FES组之间未发现统计学上的显著差异。
在这个亚急性中风样本中,使用带有体重支持的机电步态训练器进行训练的参与者,无论是否使用FES,与接受传统步态训练的参与者相比,步态更快、活动能力更好,且功能性步行有改善。有必要进行评估者盲法和更大样本量的未来研究。