Harvey L A, Davis G M, Smith M B, Engel S
Department of Physiotherapy, The Prince Henry Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998 Aug;79(8):945-9. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9993(98)90092-2.
To compare the energy expenditure during walking using the Walkabout Orthosis (WO) and the Isocentric Reciprocal Gait Orthosis (IRGO) in persons with paraplegia.
A randomized cross-over design.
Ten individuals with complete T9-12 paraplegia.
Subjects were trained to walk using the WO and the IRGO with elbow crutches.
Subjects' energy expenditures during walking using each orthosis over three different terrains--flat tile, flat carpet, and 4 degrees uphill ramp--were compared. Data collected included expired ventilation (L/min), heart rate (beats/ min), speed of walking (m/min), oxygen uptake (VO2; L/min and mL/kg/min), oxygen cost (O2 cost; mL/kg/m), and Physical Cost Index (PCI; beats/m). Subjects walked at a self-selected pace.
Subjects walked significantly slower with the WO than with the IRGO, regardless of the surface (p < .05). The average speed of walking ranged from 5.2+/-1.3 for the WO on the tiled surface to 11.5+/-2.3m/min for the IRGO on the carpeted surface. Despite marked differences in self-selected walking speeds between the two orthoses, there were no differences in either heart rate or VO2 among orthoses or surfaces. However, the O2 cost of gait was significantly greater for the WO (range, 3.95 to 4.91mL/kg/m) compared with the IRGO (range, 1.6 to 1.8mL/kg/m). Likewise, the PCI was significantly greater using the WO (range, 8.4 to 10.3beats/m) than the IRGO (range, 4.3 to 7.0beats/m).
This study shows that the metabolic demands of walking with the WO are greater than walking with the IRGO in individuals with T9-12 paraplegia.
比较截瘫患者使用Walkabout矫形器(WO)和等中心交互步态矫形器(IRGO)行走时的能量消耗。
随机交叉设计。
10名T9 - 12完全性截瘫患者。
受试者接受使用WO和IRGO并借助肘拐行走的训练。
比较受试者在三种不同地形(平瓷砖地面、平地毯地面和4度上坡斜坡)上使用每种矫形器行走时的能量消耗。收集的数据包括呼出通气量(升/分钟)、心率(次/分钟)、行走速度(米/分钟)、摄氧量(VO2;升/分钟和毫升/千克/分钟)、氧耗(O2成本;毫升/千克/米)和体力消耗指数(PCI;次/米)。受试者以自选速度行走。
无论在何种地面,使用WO行走时受试者的速度均显著慢于使用IRGO行走时(p < 0.05)。行走平均速度范围从WO在瓷砖地面上的5.2±1.3米/分钟到IRGO在铺有地毯地面上的11.5±2.3米/分钟。尽管两种矫形器的自选行走速度存在显著差异,但在心率或VO2方面,无论是不同矫形器之间还是不同地面之间均无差异。然而,与IRGO(范围为1.6至1.8毫升/千克/米)相比,WO的步态氧耗显著更高(范围为3.95至4.91毫升/千克/米)。同样,使用WO时的PCI(范围为8.4至10.3次/米)显著高于IRGO(范围为4.3至7.0次/米)。
本研究表明,T9 - 12截瘫患者使用WO行走时的代谢需求高于使用IRGO行走时。