4.5 Article

Effects of the sliding rehabilitation machine on balance and gait in chronic stroke patients - a controlled clinical trial

期刊

CLINICAL REHABILITATION
卷 25, 期 5, 页码 408-415

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0269215510385850

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry for Health, Welfare and Family Affairs, Republic of Korea [A084177]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To investigate the effects of a sliding rehabilitation machine on balance and gait in chronic stroke patients. Design: A non-randomized crossover design. Setting: Inpatient rehabilitation in a general hospital. Subjects: Thirty patients with chronic stroke who had medium or high falling risk as determined by the Berg Balance Scale. Interventions: Participants were divided into two groups and underwent four weeks of training. Group A (n = 15) underwent training with the sliding rehabilitation machine for two weeks with concurrent conventional training, followed by conventional training only for another two weeks. Group B (n = 15) underwent the same training in reverse order. The effect of the experimental period was defined as the sum of changes during training with sliding rehabilitation machine in each group, and the effect of the control period was defined as those during the conventional training only in each group. Main measures: Functional Ambulation Category, Berg Balance Scale, Six-Minute Walk Test, Timed Up and Go Test, Korean Modified Barthel Index, Modified Ashworth Scale and Manual Muscle Test. Results: Statistically significant improvements were observed in all parameters except Modified Ashworth Scale in the experimental period, but only in Six-Minute Walk Test (P < 0.01) in the control period. There were also statistically significant differences in the degree of change in all parameters in the experimental period as compared to the control period. Conclusions: The sliding rehabilitation machine may be a useful tool for the improvement of balance and gait abilities in chronic stroke patients.

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