Partial body weight support treadmill training speed influences paretic and non-paretic leg muscle activation, stride characteristics, and ratings of perceived exertion during acute stroke rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: Intensive task-specific training is promoted as one approach for facilitating neural plastic brain changes and associated motor behavior gains following neurologic injury. Partial body weight support treadmill training (PBWSTT), is one task-specific approach frequently used to improve walking during the acute period of stroke recovery (<1month post infarct). However, only limited data have been published regarding the relationship between training parameters and physiologic demands during this early recovery phase. OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of four walking speeds on stride characteristics, lower extremity muscle demands (both paretic and non-paretic), Borg ratings of perceived exertion (RPE), and blood pressure. DESIGN: A prospective, repeated measures design was used. METHODS: Ten inpatients post unilateral stroke participated. Following three familiarization sessions, participants engaged in PBWSTT at four predetermined speeds (0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0mph) while bilateral electromyographic and stride characteristic data were recorded. RPE was evaluated immediately following each trial. RESULTS: Stride length, cadence, and paretic single limb support increased with faster walking speeds (p⩽0.001), while non-paretic single limb support remained nearly constant. Faster walking resulted in greater peak and mean muscle activation in the paretic medial hamstrings, vastus lateralis and medial gastrocnemius, and non-paretic medial gastrocnemius (p⩽0.001). RPE also was greatest at the fastest compared to two slowest speeds (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: During the acute phase of stroke recovery, PBWSTT at the fastest speed (2.0mph) promoted practice of a more optimal gait pattern with greater intensity of effort as evidenced by the longer stride length, increased between-limb symmetry, greater muscle activation, and higher RPE compared to training at the slowest speeds.

Comparative kinematic and electromyographic assessment of clinician- and device-assisted sit-to-stand transfers in patients with stroke.

BACKGROUND: Workplace injuries from patient handling are prevalent. With the adoption of no-lift policies, sit-to-stand transfer devices have emerged as one tool to combat injuries. However, the therapeutic value associated with sit-to-stand transfers with the use of an assistive apparatus cannot be determined due to a lack of evidence-based data. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare clinician-assisted, device-assisted, and the combination of clinician- and device-assisted sit-to-stand transfers in individuals who recently had a stroke. DESIGN: This cross-sectional, controlled laboratory study used a repeated-measures design. METHODS: The duration, joint kinematics, and muscle activity of 4 sit-to-stand transfer conditions were compared for 10 patients with stroke. Each patient performed 4 randomized sit-to-stand transfer conditions: clinician-assisted, device-assisted with no patient effort, device-assisted with the patient's best effort, and device- and clinician-assisted. RESULTS: Device-assisted transfers took nearly twice as long as clinician-assisted transfers. Hip and knee joint movement patterns were similar across all conditions. Forward trunk flexion was lacking and ankle motion was restrained during device-assisted transfers. Encouragement and guidance from the clinician during device-assisted transfers led to increased lower extremity muscle activation levels. LIMITATIONS: One lifting device and one clinician were evaluated. Clinician effort could not be controlled. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of forward trunk flexion and restrained ankle movement during device-assisted transfers may dissuade clinicians from selecting this device for use as a dedicated rehabilitation tool. However, with clinician encouragement, muscle activation increased, which suggests that it is possible to safely practice transfers while challenging key leg muscles essential for standing. Future sit-to-stand devices should promote safety for the patient and clinician and encourage a movement pattern that more closely mimics normal sit-to-stand biomechanics.

A cross-sectional assessment of stroke rehabilitation in Nebraska hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the structure and process of stroke rehabilitation in Nebraska hospitals. DESIGN: Cross-sectional mail survey using the Dillman tailored-design method of administration. SETTING: Hospitals in Nebraska. PARTICIPANTS: Approximately 77% of the 84 Nebraska hospitals that provide stroke rehabilitation are critical access hospitals (CAHs) that are limited to 25 beds. Our study sample of hospitals (N=53) included the 19 hospitals licensed for 47 to 689 beds (non-CAHs) and a stratified random sample of 34 of the 65 CAHs. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported stroke rehabilitation team structure and processes, purposes of and barriers to the use of evidence-based standardized assessments, specific assessments used, and access to specialized stroke rehabilitation services and community resources. RESULTS: Thirty-six (68%) of the 53 hospitals responded to the survey. Approximately 61% of the hospitals used an organized team to provide stroke rehabilitation; 8% of the hospitals-all non-CAHs-had a team dedicated to stroke rehabilitation. After adjusting for hospital size, having an organized team was significantly associated with the use of standardized assessments to improve communication, measure progress and outcomes, evaluate effectiveness of practice, and compare patient outcomes across conditions. Access to specialized stroke rehabilitation professionals and services was significantly greater in non-CAHs. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital size and the presence of a team are determinants of the structure and process of stroke rehabilitation in Nebraska hospitals. Further research is needed to determine (1) whether team structure is a determinant of stroke rehabilitation outcomes across the continuum of care settings, (2) the needs of rural stroke survivors, and (3) whether technology can facilitate the use of stroke rehabilitation standardized assessments by rural health care professionals.