4.0 Article

Efficacy of a New Rehabilitative Device for Individuals With Spinal Cord Injury

Journal

JOURNAL OF SPINAL CORD MEDICINE
Volume 31, Issue 5, Pages 586-591

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/10790268.2008.11754606

Keywords

Spinal cord injuries; Rehabilitation, physical; Tetraplegia; Paraplegia; Exercise; Aerobic fitness

Funding

  1. Flexiciser International

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/Objective: Regular exercise is required in persons with spinal cord injury (SCI) to reduce the deleterious effects of chronic paralysis. The primary aims of the study were to examine responses to passive and active exercise on a new rehabilitative device for persons with SCI and to examine reliability of these responses over 2 days of testing. Methods: Nine men and women with chronic SCI completed the study, 2 with a complete injury and 7 with an incomplete injury. The level of injury ranged from thoracic (T4-T6 and T10) to cervical (4 with C5-C6 and 3 with C6-C7 injuries). They completed 2 30-minute sessions of active lower-body and passive upper-body exercise, during which heart rate (HR), blood pressure (BP), gas exchange data, rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and oxygen-hemoglobin saturation were continuously assessed. Data Analysis: One-way ANOVA with repeated measures was used to examine differences in all variables over time. Results: Results demonstrated significant increases (P < 0.05) in HR, systolic BP, RPE, and oxygen uptake (Vo(2)) from rest to exercise. No change (P > 0.05) in diastolic BP or oxygen-hemoglobin saturation was evident. Cronbach's alpha values for HR, systolic BP, and Vo(2) recorded over both days of testing ranged from 0.79 to 0.97, indicating adequate consistency. Conclusions: Data demonstrated that exercise on this device significantly increases HR, Vo(2), and systolic BP compared to rest. However, its efficacy for long-term rehabilitation, especially in regular exercisers with SCI, is unknown.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available