Objective: To examine the effects of one-point and four-point canes on postural sway and on the distribution of weight between the lower extremities and the walking aids in hemiparetic patients.
Subjects: Thirty hemiparetic patients following a unilateral stroke, with moderate functional impairment, and 20 age-matched healthy subjects.
Intervention: Subjects were tested on two forceplates, which were placed at a 30° angle from each other with the heel end of the plates separated by 3 cm. Each subject was tested under three conditions: with no cane, with a one-point cane, and with a four-point cane. Testing time was 30 seconds, and order of testing was randomized.
Outcome measures: Weight borne by the lower extremities and by the walking aids expressed as a percentage of overall body weight, and Sway Index indicating vertical pressure ‘uctuations over both feet.
Results: In both subject groups, the one-point cane did not reduce sway signi”cantly in comparison with no cane, while the four-point cane reduced sway signi”cantly in comparison with both no cane and one-point cane. Neither cane type affected weight-bearing on the paretic leg, while signi”cantly reducing weight-bearing on the uninvolved extremity. Mean percentage of body weight on the four-point cane was signi”cantly higher than on the one-point cane
Conclusions: A four-point cane increases stability of moderately involved hemiparetic patients during stance more than a one-point cane. The noted shift of weight toward the walking aid does not adversely affect weight-bearing on the paretic limb.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bernhardt J, Ellis P, Denisenko S. Changes in balance and locomotion measures during rehabilitation following stroke. Physio Res Int1998; 3(2): 109–122.
2.
Collen FM. The measurement of standing balance after stroke. Physiother Theory Pract1995; 11: 109–118.
3.
Laufer Y, Dickstein R, Resnik S, Marcovitz E. Weight-bearing shifts of hemiparetic and healthy adults upon stepping on stairs of various heights. Clin Rehabil2000; 14: 125–129.
4.
Mizrahi J, Solzi P, Ring H, Nisell R. Postural stability in stroke patients: vectorial expression of asymmetry, sway activity and relative sequence of reactive force. Med Biol Eng Comput1989; 27: 181–190.
5.
Dickstein R, Abulaf” o N, Pillar T. Vertical force loaded on walking canes in hemiparetic patients. Gait Posture1993; 1: 113–118.
6.
Smith ME, Walton MS, Garraway WM. The use of aids and adaptations in a study of stroke rehabilitation. Health Bull1981; 39: 98–106.
7.
Brandstater ME. Important practical issues in rehabilitation of the stroke patient. In: Brandstater ME, Basmajian JV eds. Stroke rehabilitation. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1987: 351-351.
8.
Bobath, B. Adult hemiplegia: evaluation and treatment. London, Heinemann, 1990.
9.
Davies PM. Steps to follow: the comprehensive treatment of patients with hemiplegia, second edition. Berlin: Springer, 2000: 274–275.
10.
Sackley C, Lincoln NB. Physiotherapy treatment for stroke patients: a survey of current practice. Physiother Theory Pract1996; 12: 87–96.
11.
Tyson SF. The support taken through walking aids during hemiplegic gait. Clin Rehabil1998; 12: 395–401.
12.
Tyson SF. Trunk kinematics in hemiplegic gait and the effect of walking aids. Clin Rehabil1999; 13: 295–300.
13.
Milczarek JJ, Kirby RL, Harrison ER, MacLeod DA. Standard and four-footed canes: their effect on the standing balance of patients with hemiparesis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1993; 74: 281–285.
14.
Wade DT, Collin C. The Barthel ADL index: a standard measure of physical disability?Int Disabil Stud1988; 10: 64–67.
15.
Holden MK, Gill KM, Magliozzi MR, Nathan J, Peihl-Baker L. Clinical gait assessment in the neurologically impaired: reliability and meaningfulness. Phys Ther1984; 64: 35–40.
16.
Turner DM. Evaluation of the Tetras Interactive Balance System and Equitest using normal subjects. Thesis, University of Southampton, 1998.
17.
Kirby RL, Price NA, Macleod DA. The in‘ uence of foot position on standing balance. J Biomech1987; 20: 423–427.
18.
Joyce BM, Kirby RL. Canes, crutches and walkers. Am Fam Phys1991; 43: 535–542.
19.
Zar JH. Biostatistical analysis, second edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1984.
20.
Carpenter MG, Frank JS, Winter DA, Peysar GW. Sampling duration effects on centre of pressure summary measures. Gait Posture2001; 13: 35–40.
21.
Alexander NB. Postural control in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc1993; 326–341.
22.
Dickstein R, Nissan M, Pillar T, Scheer, D. Footground pressure patterns of standing hemiplegic patients. Phys Ther1984; 64: 19–23.
23.
Sackley CM, Lincoln NB. Postural sway and weight distribution in normal subjects, Clin Rehabil1991; 5: 181–186.
24.
Sackley CM. The relationship between weight bearing asymmetry after stroke, motor function and activities of daily living. Physiother Theory Pract1990; 6: 179–185.
