4.6 Article

Reduction of freezing of gait in Parkinson's disease by repetitive robot-assisted treadmill training: a pilot study

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1743-0003-7-51

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Veterans Affairs Rehabilitation Research and Development Service [B4125K]
  2. VA [B4125K]
  3. Acadia Pharmaceuticals
  4. Teva
  5. Ingelheim-Boehringer
  6. Glaxosmithkline
  7. Cephalon
  8. Valeant
  9. EMD Serono
  10. Pfizer
  11. National Institute of Health
  12. Michael J Fox Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Parkinson's disease is a chronic, neurodegenerative disease characterized by gait abnormalities. Freezing of gait (FOG), an episodic inability to generate effective stepping, is reported as one of the most disabling and distressing parkinsonian symptoms. While there are no specific therapies to treat FOG, some external physical cues may alleviate these types of motor disruptions. The purpose of this study was to examine the potential effect of continuous physical cueing using robot-assisted sensorimotor gait training on reducing FOG episodes and improving gait. Methods: Four individuals with Parkinson's disease and FOG symptoms received ten 30-minute sessions of robot-assisted gait training (Lokomat) to facilitate repetitive, rhythmic, and alternating bilateral lower extremity movements. Outcomes included the FOG-Questionnaire, a clinician-rated video FOG score, spatiotemporal measures of gait, and the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39 quality of life measure. Results: All participants showed a reduction in FOG both by self-report and clinician-rated scoring upon completion of training. Improvements were also observed in gait velocity, stride length, rhythmicity, and coordination. Conclusions: This pilot study suggests that robot-assisted gait training may be a feasible and effective method of reducing FOG and improving gait. Videotaped scoring of FOG has the potential advantage of providing additional data to complement FOG self-report.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据