Comparative analysis of speed's impact on muscle demands during partial body weight support motor-assisted elliptical training.

Individuals with walking limitations often experience challenges engaging in functionally relevant exercise. An adapted elliptical trainer (motor to assist pedal movement, integrated body weight harness, ramps/stairs, and grab rails) has been developed to help individuals with physical disabilities and chronic conditions regain/retain walking capacity and fitness. However, limited published studies are available to guide therapeutic interventions. This repeated measures study examined the influence of motor-assisted elliptical training speed on lower extremity muscle demands at four body weight support (BWS) levels commonly used therapeutically for walking. Electromyography (EMG) and pedal trajectory data were recorded as ten individuals without known disability used the motor-assisted elliptical trainer at three speeds [20,40, 60 revolutions per minute (RPM)] during each BWS level (0%, 20%, 40%, 60%). Overall, the EMG activity (peak, mean, duration) in key stabilizer muscles (i.e., gluteus medius, gluteus maximus, vastus lateralis, medial gastrocnemius and soleus) recorded at 60 RPM exceeded those at 40 RPM, which were higher than values at 20 RPM in all but three situations (gluteus medius mean at 0% BWS, vastus lateralis mean at 20% BWS, soleus duration at 40% BWS); however, these differences did not always achieve statistical significance. Slower motor-assisted speeds can be used to accommodate weakness of gluteus medius, gluteus maximus, vastus lateralis, medial gastrocnemius and soleus. As strength improves, training at faster motor-assisted speeds may provide a means to progressively challenge key lower extremity stabilizers.

Lower extremity kinematics during walking and elliptical training in individuals with and without traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Elliptical training may be an option for practicing walking-like activity for individuals with traumatic brain injuries (TBI). Understanding similarities and differences between participants with TBI and neurologically healthy individuals during elliptical trainer use and walking may help guide clinical applications incorporating elliptical trainers. METHODS: Ten participants with TBI and a comparison group of 10 neurologically healthy participants underwent 2 familiarization sessions and 1 data collection session. Kinematic data were collected as participants walked on a treadmill or on an elliptical trainer. Gait-related measures, including coefficient of multiple correlations (a measure of similarity between ensemble joint movement profiles; coefficient of multiple correlations [CMCs]), critical event joint angles, variability of peak critical event joint angles (standard deviations [SDs]) of peak critical event joint angles, and maximum Lyapunov exponents (a measure of the organization of the variability [LyEs]) were compared between groups and conditions. RESULTS: Coefficient of multiple correlations values comparing the similarity in ensemble motion profiles between the TBI and comparison participants exceeded 0.85 for the hip, knee, and ankle joints. The only critical event joint angle that differed significantly between participants with TBI and comparison participants was the ankle during terminal stance. Variability was higher for the TBI group (6 of 11 comparisons significant) compared with comparison participants. Hip and knee joint movement patterns of both participants with TBI and comparison participants on the elliptical trainer were similar to walking (CMCs ≥ 0.87). Variability was higher during elliptical trainer usage compared with walking (5 of 11 comparisons significant). Hip LyEs were higher during treadmill walking. Ankle LyEs were greater during elliptical trainer usage. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Movement patterns of participants with TBI were similar to, but more variable than, those of comparison participants while using both the treadmill and the elliptical trainer. If incorporation of complex movements similar to walking is a goal of rehabilitation, elliptical training is a reasonable alternative to treadmill-based training.Video Abstract available (see Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A65) for more insights from the authors.

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.

Kinematic and electromyographic analyses of normal and device-assisted sit-to-stand transfers.

Mechanical sit-to-stand devices assist patient transfers and help protect against work-related injuries in rehabilitation environments. However, observational differences between patient's movements within devices compared to normal sit-to-stand transfers deter clinician use. This study compared kinematics and muscle demands during sit-to-stand transfers with no device (ND), and device-assisted during which participants exerted no effort (DA-NE) and best effort (DA-BE). Coefficient of multiple correlations (CMCs) compared kinematic profiles during each device-assisted condition to ND. Compared to DA-NE, CMCs were higher during DA-BE at the hip, knee, and ankle. However, DA-BE values were lower than DA-NE at the trunk and pelvis due to the device's mechanical constraints. In general, all joints' final DA-NE postures were more flexed than other conditions. Electromyographic was significantly lower during DA-NE compared to ND for all muscles except lateral hamstring, and during DA-BE compared to ND for gluteus maximus, gastrocnemius, and soleus. Verbal encouragement (DA-BE) significantly increased medial hamstring, vastus lateralis, gastrocnemius, soleus and tibialis anterior activation compared to DA-NE. In conclusion, device-assisted sit-to-stand movements differed from normal sit-to-stand patterns. Verbally encouraging best effort during device-assisted transfers elevated select lower extremity muscle activation and led to greater similarity in hip, knee and ankle movement profiles. However, trunk and pelvis profiles declined.

Impact of elliptical trainer ergonomic modifications on perceptions of safety, comfort, workout, and usability for people with physical disabilities and chronic conditions.

BACKGROUND: The popularity of elliptical training has grown in rehabilitation, fitness, and home settings as a means for improving fitness and walking, yet many people with physical disabilities and chronic conditions experience difficulties when trying to use elliptical trainers. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare, for people with disabilities and chronic conditions, perceptions of safety, comfort, workout, and usability of 4 elliptical trainers before and after the development of a set of low-cost adaptations. DESIGN: This study was a quasi-experimental repeated-measures investigation. METHODS: Twenty adults with diverse medical conditions and functional abilities evaluated 4 elliptical trainers for safety, comfort, workout, and usability. Barriers to the use of the elliptical trainers and solutions to improve the use of the trainers were identified. Prototype modifications were designed, and participants reassessed the same features after the modifications were made. RESULTS: An integrated system (steps, bench, side rails, center rail or handle, deeper foot wells, and 1-handed heart rate monitor) was developed. Although at least 25% of participants required physical assistance to get on or off the elliptical trainers before modification, only one required this after modification. Before modification, only 1 participant was able to mount each device independently; after modification, 6 to 8 participants were able to do so. Up to 25% of participants continued to require assistance to initiate or sustain pedal movement. Compared with participants' ratings of the elliptical trainers before modification, those after modification were higher for safety (55% increase in visual analog scale ratings), comfort (43% higher), ability to achieve a good workout (23% greater), and usability (24% increase). LIMITATIONS: To date, only 4 elliptical trainers have been studied with a small sample of convenience. CONCLUSIONS: Elliptical trainers posed access challenges to people with disabilities, chronic conditions, or both. Implementation of low-cost modifications successfully reduced barriers and the need for assistance, enabling greater access for people who could benefit from using the devices for functional training and fitness.