4.5 Article

Virtual obstacle crossing: Reliability and differences in stroke survivors who prospectively experienced falls or no falls

期刊

GAIT & POSTURE
卷 58, 期 -, 页码 533-538

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2017.09.013

关键词

Obstacle crossing; Gait; Prospective falls; Stroke; Virtual environment

资金

  1. Netherlands organization for Scientific Research (NWO) [023-003-141, 451-12-041]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Stroke survivors often fall during walking. To reduce fall risk, gait testing and training with avoidance of virtual obstacles is gaining popularity. However, it is unknown whether and how virtual obstacle crossing is associated with fall risk. Aim: The present study assessed whether obstacle crossing characteristics are reliable and assessed differences in stroke survivors who prospectively experienced falls or no falls. Method: We recruited twenty-nine community dwelling chronic stroke survivors. Participants crossed five virtual obstacles with increasing lengths. After a break, the test was repeated to assess test-retest reliability. For each obstacle length and trial, we determined; success rate, leading limb preference, pre and post obstacle distance, margins of stability, toe clearance, and crossing step length and speed. Subsequently, fall incidence was monitored using a fall calendar and monthly phone calls over a six-month period. Results: Test-retest reliability was poor, but improved with increasing obstacle-length. Twelve participants reported at least one fall. No association of fall incidence with any of the obstacle crossing characteristics was found. Discussion: Given the absence of height of the virtual obstacles, obstacle avoidance may have been relatively easy, allowing participants to cross obstacles in multiple ways, increasing variability of crossing characteristics and reducing the association with fall risk. Conclusion: These finding cast some doubt on current protocols for testing and training of obstacle avoidance in stroke rehabilitation.

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

4.5
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