Department of Physical Therapy, College of Applied Health Sciences, University of Illinois, Chicago, IL 60612, USA; Ph.D. program in Rehabilitation Sciences, Department of Physical Therapy, College of Applied Health Sciences, University of Illinois, Chicago, IL 60612 USA.
Department of Physical Therapy, College of Applied Health Sciences, University of Illinois, Chicago, IL 60612, USA; MS program in Rehabilitation Sciences, Department of Physical Therapy, College of Applied Health Sciences, University of Illinois, Chicago, IL 60612, USA.
J Biomech. 2021 Mar 30;118:110255. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2021.110255. Epub 2021 Jan 17.
People with chronic stroke (PwCS) demonstrate similar gait-slip fall-risk on both paretic and non-paretic side. Compensatory stepping and slipping limb control are crucial to reduce gait-slip fall-risk. Given the unpredictable intensities of real-life perturbations, this study aimed to determine whether recovery from paretic or non-paretic slips vary as a function of perturbation intensity among PwCS. Forty-four PwCS were assigned to non-paretic low intensity slip, non-paretic high intensity slip, paretic low intensity slip, or paretic high intensity slip group. Participants were subjected to a novel overground gait-slip with a distance of 24 cm (low) or 45 cm (high), under either limb. Recovery strategies, center of mass (CoM) state stability and slipping kinematics were analyzed. Both non-paretic high and low intensity groups demonstrated similar percentage of aborted and recovery stepping, however, paretic high intensity group demonstrated greater aborted stepping (p > 0.05). Both high and low intensity paretic slip groups demonstrated reduced post-slip CoM stability relative to the non-paretic slip groups (p < 0.05). Slip displacement was greater in paretic high group compared with non-paretic high group (p < 0.05). Greater slip displacement at higher intensity was noted only in paretic slip group (p < 0.05). The slip velocity was faster in paretic groups compared to non-paretic slip groups (p < 0.05). Paretic slips showed lower stability at both intensities associated with difficulty in modulating slipping kinematics and resorting to an increased aborted stepping strategy compared to non-paretic slip. These findings are suggestive of developing balance interventions for improving both compensatory non-paretic limb stepping and reactive control of slipping paretic limb for fall-risk reduction.
慢性脑卒中患者(PwCS)在患侧和非患侧均表现出相似的步态滑动跌倒风险。代偿性迈步和滑动肢体控制对于降低步态滑动跌倒风险至关重要。鉴于现实生活中干扰的强度不可预测,本研究旨在确定 PwCS 从患侧或非患侧滑动中恢复的情况是否会因干扰强度的不同而有所不同。44 名 PwCS 被分配到非患侧低强度滑动、非患侧高强度滑动、患侧低强度滑动或患侧高强度滑动组。参与者在距离为 24 厘米(低)或 45 厘米(高)的地面上进行新型步态滑动,分别在肢体的一侧。分析了恢复策略、质心(CoM)状态稳定性和滑动运动学。非患侧高、低强度组均表现出相似的中止和恢复迈步的百分比,但患侧高强度组表现出更大的中止迈步(p>0.05)。高、低强度患侧滑动组的 CoM 稳定性均低于非患侧滑动组(p<0.05)。与非患侧高滑动组相比,患侧高滑动组的滑动位移更大(p<0.05)。仅在患侧滑动组中观察到更高强度时的更大滑动位移(p<0.05)。与非患侧滑动组相比,患侧组的滑动速度更快(p<0.05)。与非患侧滑动相比,患侧滑动在两种强度下均表现出较低的稳定性,这与调节滑动运动学的困难以及倾向于增加中止迈步策略有关,以降低跌倒风险。这些发现表明,需要开发平衡干预措施,以提高代偿性非患侧肢体迈步和对患侧滑动肢体的反应性控制能力,从而降低跌倒风险。