4.6 Article

Influence of walking speed on lower limb muscle activity and energy consumption during treadmill walking of hemiparetic patients

Journal

ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION
Volume 82, Issue 11, Pages 1547-1550

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO
DOI: 10.1053/apmr.2001.26607

Keywords

exercise test; gait; hemiparesis; leg; muscles; rehabilitation; walking

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To identify the relationship between treadmill speed and energy consumption and lower limb muscle activity in ambulatory hemiparetic patients. Design: Experimental cohort. Setting: Inpatient rehabilitation clinic. Participants: Twenty-four ambulatory hemiparetic subjects. Intervention: Subjects walked harness-secured on the treadmill with no body-weight support at self-reported (V SAS), slow (V SAS - 25%), and fast (V SAS + 25%) speed. Main Outcome Measures: Assessment of basic, limb-dependent cycle parameters, lower limb muscle activity, and energy consumption. Results: Cadence (r = .75), stride length (r = .78), relative double-support duration (r = .31), mean muscle activity of the paretic tibialis anterior (r = .12), gastrocnemius (r = .37), vastus lateralis (r = .19), rectus femoris (r = .31), and biceps femoris (r = .45) muscles, as well as heart rate (r = .54), correlated positively with treadmill speed. Mean maximum heart rate was 131 beats/min. Energy (r = -.67) and cardiac cost V = -.55) correlated negatively with gait speed (ie, patients walked more efficiently at faster velocities). The qualitative muscle activation pattern analysis revealed earlier (more normal) onset of activation of gastrocnemius, vastus lateralis, biceps femoris, and gluteus medius. Conclusions: Patients should try to walk fast on the treadmill, thereby facilitating relevant weight-bearing muscles and improving gait efficiency. (C) 2001 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available