Capability of 2 gait measures for detecting response to gait training in stroke survivors: Gait Assessment and Intervention Tool and the Tinetti Gait Scale.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the performance of 2 observational gait measures, the Tinetti Gait Scale (TGS) and the Gait Assessment and Intervention Tool (G.A.I.T.), in identifying improvement in gait in response to gait training. DESIGN: In secondary analysis from a larger study of multimodal gait training for stroke survivors, we measured gait at pre-, mid-, and posttreatment according to G.A.I.T. and TGS, assessing their capability to capture recovery of coordinated gait components. SETTING: Large medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Cohort of stroke survivors (N=44) greater than 6 months after stroke. INTERVENTIONS: All subjects received 48 sessions of a multimodal gait-training protocol. Treatment consisted of 1.5 hours per session, 4 sessions per week for 12 weeks, receiving these 3 treatment aspects: (1) coordination exercise, (2) body weight-supported treadmill training, and (3) overground gait training, with 46% of subjects receiving functional electrical stimulation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All subjects were evaluated with the G.A.I.T. and TGS before and after completing the 48-session intervention. An additional evaluation was performed at midtreatment (after session 24). RESULTS: For the total subject sample, there were significant pre-/post-, pre-/mid-, and mid-/posttreatment gains for both the G.A.I.T. and the TGS. According to the G.A.I.T., 40 subjects (91%) showed improved scores, 2 (4%) no change, and 2 (4%) a worsening score. According to the TGS, only 26 subjects (59%) showed improved scores, 16 (36%) no change, and 1 (2%) a worsening score. For 1 treatment group of chronic stroke survivors, the TGS failed to identify a significant treatment response to gait training, whereas the G.A.I.T. measure was successful. CONCLUSIONS: The G.A.I.T. is more sensitive than the TGS for individual patients and group treatment response in identifying recovery of volitional control of gait components in response to gait training.

Recovery of coordinated gait: randomized controlled stroke trial of functional electrical stimulation (FES) versus no FES, with weight-supported treadmill and over-ground training.

BACKGROUND: No single intervention restores the coordinated components of gait after stroke. OBJECTIVE: The authors tested the multimodal Gait Training Protocol, with or without functional electrical stimulation (FES), to improve volitional walking (without FES) in patients with persistent (>6 months) dyscoordinated gait. METHODS: A total of 53 subjects were stratified and randomly allocated to either FES with intramuscular (IM) electrodes (FES-IM) or No-FES. Both groups received 1.5-hour training sessions 4 times a week for 12 weeks of coordination exercises, body weight-supported treadmill training (BWSTT), and over-ground walking, provided with FES-IM or No-FES. The primary outcome was the Gait Assessment and Intervention Tool (G.A.I.T.) of coordinated movement components, with secondary measures, including manual muscle testing, isolated leg movements (Fugl-Meyer scale), 6-Minute Walk Test, and Locomotion/Mobility subscale of the Functional Independence Measure (FIM). RESULTS: No baseline differences in subject characteristics and measures were found. The G.A.I.T. showed an additive advantage with FES-IM versus No-FES (parameter statistic 1.10; P = .045, 95% CI = 0.023-2.179) at the end of training. For both FES-IM and No-FES, a within-group, pre/posttreatment gain was present for all measures (P < .05), and a continued benefit from mid- to posttreatment (P < .05) was present. For FES-IM, recovered coordinated gait persisted at 6-month follow-up but not for No-FES. CONCLUSION: Improved gait coordination and function were produced by the multimodal Gait Training Protocol. FES-IM added significant gains that were maintained for 6 months after the completion of training.