{"title":"Comparison of high-intensive and low-intensive electromechanical-assisted gait training by Exowalk® in patients over 3-month post-stroke.","authors":"Chang Seon Yu, Yeon-Gyo Nam, Bum Sun Kwon","doi":"10.1186/s13102-022-00515-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study was conducted to assess the effect of electromechanical-assisted gait training intensity on walking ability in patients over 3-month post-stroke.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were collected under the same study design of assessment and intervention, excluding intervention time per session. After matching the inclusion criteria of two RCTs, the experimental groups of each RCT were defined as low-intensive (LI) and high-intensive (HI) group according to the intervention time per session. Primary outcome was the difference of the change in Functional Ambulatory Categories (FAC) between LI and HI gait training. Secondary outcomes were the difference of changes in mobility, walking speed, walking capacity, leg-muscle strength, balance and daily activity evaluated with Rivermead Mobility Index (RMI), 10 m walk test (10MWT), 6-min walk test (6MWT), Motricity Index (MI), Berg Balance Scale (BBS) and Modified Barthel Index (MBI) respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The FAC improved after gait training in both groups. The secondary outcomes also improved in both groups except RMI and MI in HI group. The change of all outcomes were not different between groups except RMI. The change of RMI in the LI group was greater than that in the HI group statistically, but it did not meet minimal clinically important difference.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The improvement of walking ability after LI or HI gait training was not different if providing the same total gait training time. By providing the electromechanical gait training intensively, we could shorten the gait training period to improve walking ability and customize the training program according to the patient training abilities.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Name of the registry: Clinical Research Information Service.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>No. KCT0002195(RCT1), No. KCT0002552(RCT2). Date of registration: 10/04/2016(RCT1), 10/05/2017(RCT2). URL of the trial registry record: https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/search.</p>","PeriodicalId":520573,"journal":{"name":"BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"126"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9275251/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13102-022-00515-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: This study was conducted to assess the effect of electromechanical-assisted gait training intensity on walking ability in patients over 3-month post-stroke.
Methods: Data from two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were collected under the same study design of assessment and intervention, excluding intervention time per session. After matching the inclusion criteria of two RCTs, the experimental groups of each RCT were defined as low-intensive (LI) and high-intensive (HI) group according to the intervention time per session. Primary outcome was the difference of the change in Functional Ambulatory Categories (FAC) between LI and HI gait training. Secondary outcomes were the difference of changes in mobility, walking speed, walking capacity, leg-muscle strength, balance and daily activity evaluated with Rivermead Mobility Index (RMI), 10 m walk test (10MWT), 6-min walk test (6MWT), Motricity Index (MI), Berg Balance Scale (BBS) and Modified Barthel Index (MBI) respectively.
Results: The FAC improved after gait training in both groups. The secondary outcomes also improved in both groups except RMI and MI in HI group. The change of all outcomes were not different between groups except RMI. The change of RMI in the LI group was greater than that in the HI group statistically, but it did not meet minimal clinically important difference.
Conclusions: The improvement of walking ability after LI or HI gait training was not different if providing the same total gait training time. By providing the electromechanical gait training intensively, we could shorten the gait training period to improve walking ability and customize the training program according to the patient training abilities.
Trial registration: Name of the registry: Clinical Research Information Service.
Trial registration number: No. KCT0002195(RCT1), No. KCT0002552(RCT2). Date of registration: 10/04/2016(RCT1), 10/05/2017(RCT2). URL of the trial registry record: https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/search.
背景:本研究旨在评估机电辅助步态训练强度对脑卒中后3个月患者行走能力的影响。方法:收集两项随机对照试验(rct)的数据,采用相同的评估和干预研究设计,不包括每次干预时间。在匹配两个RCT的纳入标准后,根据每次干预时间将每个RCT的实验组定义为低强度(LI)和高强度(HI)组。主要结果是LI和HI步态训练之间功能活动类别(FAC)变化的差异。次要指标分别用Rivermead mobility Index (RMI)、10 m walking test (10MWT)、6 min walking test (6MWT)、moicity Index (MI)、Berg balance Scale (BBS)和Modified Barthel Index (MBI)评价两组在活动能力、步行速度、步行能力、腿部肌肉力量、平衡能力和日常活动量方面的变化差异。结果:两组患者步态训练后FAC均有改善。除HI组RMI和MI外,两组的次要结局均有改善。除RMI外,各组间各项指标变化无显著差异。LI组RMI的变化在统计学上大于HI组,但没有达到最小的临床重要差异。结论:在总步态训练时间相同的情况下,LI和HI步态训练对步行能力的改善没有差异。通过密集的机电步态训练,可以缩短步态训练周期,提高行走能力,并根据患者的训练能力定制训练方案。试验注册:注册中心名称:临床研究信息服务中心。试验登记号:KCT0002195 (RCT1),没有。KCT0002552 (RCT2)。注册日期:2016年10月4日(RCT1), 2017年10月5日(RCT2)。试用注册表记录的URL: https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/search。