Objective: To describe and examine the feasibility of a new treatment approach for the paretic lower limb and to explore its effectiveness in one chronic hemiparetic stroke subject.
Design: Case report. The treatment was conducted three times per week over a period of six weeks. The mobility of the patient was assessed prior to the treatment, at the end of the treatment and at a six-week follow-up. Settings: The study was carried out at the research centre of the Institut de réadaptation de Montréal. The treating therapist was an experienced rehabilitation professional as was the assessor, who worked at a different rehabilitation centre.
Interventions: The motor re-education programme was based on the use of a static dynamometer that measures the linear external forces produced at the ankle level. A computer program provided the subject with constant feedback on the direction and intensity of the applied force. In each treatment session, the subject was asked to produce several submaximal efforts in 16 specific directions. Both the intensity and the number of repetitions were gradually increased.
Outcome measures: In addition to force production measurements, three clinical assessments of mobility were used: the Timed ‘Up and Go’, the comfortable gait speed and a 2-minute walk test.
Results: The maximal static linear forces produced by the subject increased through the treatment for all directions of effort, but differences were observed amongst directions. During the treatment programme, the subject improved his performance at the three clinical assessments. Even if some of the functional gain was lost at the follow-up, the mobility was still considerably improved as compared to baseline values.
Conclusion: This study demonstrated the applicability of the treatment programme to a stroke subject. The results seem very promising and encourage further investigation in order to assess more rigorously the effectiveness of this new approach.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bohannon RW, Andrews AW, Smith MB. Rehabilitation goals of patients with hemiplegia. Int J Rehabil Res1988; 11: 181–183.
2.
Wade DT, Wood VA, Heller A, Maggs J, Langton Hewer R. Walking after stroke. Scand J Rehabil Med1987; 19: 25–30.
3.
Bohannon RW. Gait performance of hemiparetic stroke patients: selected variables. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1987; 68: 777–781.
4.
Bohannon RW, Andrews AW. Correlation of knee extensor muscle torque and spasticity with gait speed in patients with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1990; 71: 330–333.
5.
Davies JM, Mayston MJ, Newham DJ. Electrical and mechanical output of the knee muscles during isometric and isokinetic activity in stroke and healthy adults. Disabil Rehabil1996; 18: 83–90.
6.
Keenan MA, Perry J, Jordan C. Factors affecting balance and ambulation following stroke. Clin Orthop1984; 182: 165–171.
7.
Nakamaru R, Hosokawa T, Tsuji I. Relationship of muscle strength for knee extension to walking capacity in patients with spastic hemiparesis. Tohoku J Exp Med1985; 145: 335–340.
8.
Norton BJ, Bomze HA, Sahrmann SA, Eliasson SG. Correlation between gait speed and spasticity at the knee. Phys Ther1975; 55: 355–359.
9.
Bohannon RW. Strength of the lower limb related to gait velocity and cadence in stroke patients. Physiother Can1986; 38: 204–206.
10.
Bohannon RW. Correlation of knee extension force and torque with gait speed in patients with stroke. Physiother Theory Pract1991; 7: 185–190.
11.
Bohannon RW. Strength deficits also predict gait performance in patients with stroke. Percept Mot Skills1991; 73: 146-146.
12.
Hamrin E, Eklund G, Hillgren AK, Borges O, Hall J, Hellstrom O. Muscle strength and balance in post-stroke patients. Ups J Med Sci1982; 87: 11–26.
13.
Nadeau S, Gravel D, Arsenault AB, Bourbonnais D, Goyette M. Dynamometric assessment of the plantarflexors in hemiparetic subjects: relations between muscular, gait and clinical parameters. Scand J Rehabil Med1997; 29: 137–146.
14.
Nakamaru R, Watanabe S, Handa T, Morohashi I. The relationship between walking speed and muscle strength for knee extension in hemiparetic stroke patients. Tohoku J Exp Med1988; 154: 111–113.
15.
Suzuki K, Nakamaru R, Yamada Y, Handa T. Determinants of maximum walking speed in hemiparetic stroke patients. Tohoku J Exp Med1990; 162: 337–344.
16.
Bobath B. Adult hemiplegia: Evaluation and treatment, second edition. London: William and Heinemann Medical Books, 1990.
17.
Bourbonnais D, Bilodeau S, Caron S, Cross P, Goyette M, Lemay JF. A motor reeducation program aimed to improve strength and coordination of the upper limb of hemiparetic subject. NeuroRehabilitation1997; 9: 3–15.
18.
Giuliani CA. Strength training for patients with neurological disorders. Neurol Rep1995; 19: 29–34.
19.
Miller GJT, Light KE. Strength training in spastic hemiparesis: should it be avoided?Neuro Rehabilitation1997; 9: 17–28.
20.
Bourbonnais D, Vanden Noven S. Weakness in patients with hemiparesis. Am J Occup Ther1989; 43: 313–319.
21.
Bohannon RW, Smith MB. Interrater reliability of a modified Ashworth scale of muscle spasticity. Phys Ther1987; 67: 206–207.
22.
Gowland C, Stratford P, Ward M et al. Measuring physical impairment and disability with the Chedoke–McMaster Stroke Assessment. Stroke1993; 24: 58–63.
23.
Semmes J, Weinstein S, Ghent L, Teuber H. Somatosensory changes after penetrating brain wounds in man. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960.
24.
Podsialdo D, Richardson S. The timed ‘Up and Go’: A test of basic functional mobility for frail persons. J Am Geriatr Soc1991; 39: 142–148.
25.
Brandstater ME, de Bruin H, Gowland C, Clark BM. Hemiplegic gait: analysis of temporal variables. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1983; 64: 583–587.
26.
Richards C, Malouin F, Wood-Dauphinee S, William JI, Bouchard JP, Brunet D. Task-specific physical therapy for optimization of gait recovery in acute stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1993; 74: 612–620.
27.
Engardt M, Knutsson E, Jonsson M, Sternhag M. Dynamic muscle strength training in stroke patients: effects on knee extension torque, electromyographic activity, and motor function. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1995; 76: 419–425.
28.
Sharp SA, Brouwer BJ. Isokinetic strength training of the hemiparetic knee: effects on function and spasticity. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1997; 78: 1231–1236.
29.
Kriz G, Hermsdorfer J, Marquardt C, Mai N. Feedback-based training of grip force control in patients with brain damage. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1995; 76: 653–659.
30.
Schleenbaker RE, Mainous AGd. Electromyographic biofeedback for neuromuscular reeducation in the hemiplegic stroke patient: a meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1993; 74: 1301–1304.
31.
Bonita R, Beaglehole R. Recovery of motor function after stroke. Stroke1988; 21: 1497–1500.
32.
Newman M. The process of recovery after stroke. Stroke1972; 3: 702–710.
33.
Olsen TS. Arm and leg paresis as outcome predictor in stroke rehabilitation. Stroke1990; 21: 247–251.
