4.3 Article

Amantadine increases gait steadiness in frontal gait disorder due to subcortical vascular encephalopathy: A double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial based on quantitative gait analysis

期刊

CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASES
卷 11, 期 3, 页码 235-244

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000047645

关键词

gait analysis; amantadine; subcortical vascular encephalopathy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial, 40 patients diagnosed as subcortical vascular encephalopathy (SVE) were given a daily dose of 500 ml i.v. amantadine vs. placebo for 5 days. Both groups were treated with physiotherapy on a daily basis. Quantitative gait analyses were performed at days 1 and 6 to evaluate gait steadiness from cadence, length of heel-to-toe movements, variability of centre of gravity (COG) and double support time. Both placebo- and amantadine-receiving patient groups showed mild improvement in gait parameters after study, which failed to show the superiority of amantadine, when comparing drug-induced changes between both groups. However, analysing the treatment effects from day 0 to day 6 in both groups separately, statistically significant changes could be found in the amantadine group for cadence, length of heel-to-toe movements in single support phase as well as for variability in double support phase and double support time (two-tailed paired t-test, p < 0.05), whereas in the placebo group, a statistically significant effect could only be seen for double support time (p < 0.05). In this small pilot study, amantadine tends to improve gait steadiness as evaluated by cadence, length of heel-to-toe movements in single support phase, variability in double support phase and double support time, in patients with moderate frontal gait disorder due to SVE. Improvements in the placebo group can be interpreted as physiotherapy effect, which improved gait steadiness slightly, however, this was statistically significant only for double support time. Copyright (C) 2001 S.Karger AG, Basel.

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

4.3
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