Baylor Scott & White Institute for Rehabilitation, Frisco, TX, USA.
School of Physical Therapy, Texas Woman's University Institute of Health Sciences, Dallas, TX, USA.
Clin Rehabil. 2020 Aug;34(8):1094-1102. doi: 10.1177/0269215520927738. Epub 2020 Jun 23.
To identify whether patients in the subacute stage of stroke, with foot drop, would have better gait outcomes when using a double-adjustable AFO (DA AFO) or a posterior leaf spring AFO (PLS AFO) at baseline without practice and to determine whether one week of practice would significantly change gait outcomes with either of the AFOs.
Within-subject 2 × 2 repeated measures design.
Postacute and outpatient rehabilitation center.
Twenty individuals with mean age of 57 years (SD: 12.0 years) with subacute stroke.
Participants were measured using DA AFO and PLS AFO at baseline. Follow-up measurements were taken after one week of practice with each type of AFO in randomly assigned order.
Gait endurance (6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT)), gait symmetry, and gait velocity at self-selected and fast-paced velocity measured using GAITRite gait analysis system and patient report of AFO preference.
At baseline, no significant differences were found between the 2 AFOs ( > 0.05). There was no significant interaction ( > 0.05) of AFO and practice for gait endurance, symmetry, and velocity. Main effect of practice was significant for gait endurance ( < 0.001), self-selected velocity ( = 0.001), and fast-paced velocity ( < 0.001). In all, 16 participants preferred using DA AFO for walking.
No difference between DA AFO and PLS AFO was found on measures of gait endurance, symmetry, and velocity at baseline or after practice. With practice over time, participants improved in gait endurance and velocity regardless of AFO type.
确定亚急性期脑卒中伴足下垂患者在未经练习的情况下使用双调节踝足矫形器(DA AFO)或后叶弹簧踝足矫形器(PLS AFO)时,基线时的步态结果是否更好,并确定在这两种矫形器中,经过一周的练习是否会显著改变步态结果。
自身对照 2×2 重复测量设计。
亚急性和门诊康复中心。
20 名平均年龄为 57 岁(标准差:12.0 岁)的亚急性脑卒中患者。
在基线时使用 DA AFO 和 PLS AFO 对参与者进行测量。在每种 AFO 以随机顺序进行一周练习后,进行后续测量。
在基线时,两种 AFO 之间没有发现显著差异( > 0.05)。AFO 和练习之间没有显著的交互作用( > 0.05),步态耐力(6 分钟步行测试(6MWT))、步态对称性和使用步态分析系统 GAITRite 和患者对 AFO 偏好的报告测量的快节奏速度。没有显著的主效应( > 0.05)。练习的主要效应在步态耐力( < 0.001)、自我选择速度( = 0.001)和快节奏速度( < 0.001)方面有显著意义。总共有 16 名参与者更喜欢使用 DA AFO 进行行走。
在基线或练习后,DA AFO 和 PLS AFO 在步态耐力、对称性和速度方面没有差异。随着时间的推移进行练习,参与者在步态耐力和速度方面都有所提高,无论 AFO 类型如何。