Características cinemáticas, cinéticas e eletromiográficas do andar de adultos jovens com e sem suporte parcial de peso corporal

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze the kinematic, kinetic and electromyographic characteristics of young adults walking on a fixed platform without a vest and with partial body weight support (PBWS) of 0, 10, 20 and 30%. Method: Eight young adults (mean age: 22.2 years) were videotaped walking on a walkway that contained a force plate embedded in its middle portion, to record the ground reaction force (GRF) components. Reflective markers were placed on the main anatomical points of the lower limbs in order to acquire kinematic data, and surface electrodes were attached to the tibialis anterior and gastrocnemius medialis muscles in order to record electromyographic muscle activity. Results: Significant differences among the five experimental conditions were observed with regard to spatial-temporal variables, the maximum and minimum angles for the thigh, knee, and ankle, and the amplitudes of the anteroposterior horizontal and vertical GRF components. Generally, the greatest changes occurred with PBWS of 30%. Conclusion: It is important to take into consideration the compensations to walking patterns that occur with PBWS, in planning therapeutic interventions. Moreover, to better define the use of suspended weight systems in rehabilitation programs, further investigations should be conducted in order to verify the walking patterns on fixed platforms among populations with movement disorders.

Ground reaction forces during level ground walking with body weight unloading

“…Overall, they found that vertical GRF curves were preserved only when the participants walked without a harness or with harness with 0% BWS, contrary to anterior-posterior GRF curves, which were preserved throughout different experimental conditions. When the participants walked with BWS, they diminished the contact and propulsive forces 11 . Since Patiño et al 11 did not control walking velocity throughout the different experimental conditions, it is not possible to conclude how much body unloading could influence these differences, since walking velocity affects GRF components 21 , 22 .…”

“…Patiño et al 11 investigated gait characteristics of healthy young adults walking with and without a harness with 0%, 10%, 20%, and 30% BWS on level ground, including the description of the first peak (i.e. weight acceptance), second peak (i.e.…”

Influence of body weight unloading and support surface during walking of children with cerebral palsy

“…The children walked with similar speed over ground and on treadmill (F 1,6 = 1.42, p = 0.278), and presented shorter stance period as the BWS unloading increased (F 2,12 = 16.64, p = 0.000), regardless the walking surface (F 1,6 = 3.95, p = 0.094). Temporal organization was Considering that children with CP may present difficulties to walk, according to motor impairment, the BWS system used in this study provided reduction of both biomechanical overload and propulsive forces to transport the body forward (17,28). This aspect might be verified through the reduction of stance duration as the body weight unloading increased, and probably facilitated lower limb movements and enabled children to walk with the same speed.…”

“…It is important to note that these differences are not due to mean walking speed, which was similar among experimental conditions, but rather to manipulation of walking surface and body weight unloading on lower limbs. Previous studies investigated the use of BWS system in different surfaces (9,25,27,28), however, the system used in the present study was different from the previous one concerning children with CP (25), and allowed to control the children's walking speed.…”

Effects of the addition of functional electrical stimulation to ground level gait training with body weight support after chronic stroke

“…The cameras were positioned bilaterally in order to allow kinematics measurements simultaneously in both directions of motion, and were synchronized by light shots. Passive reflective markers were attached by the same assessor in all evaluations, on the paretic and non-paretic body sides, at the following anatomical locations 29 : head of the fifth metatarsal, lateral malleolus, lateral femoral epicondyle, greater trochanter, and acromion in order to define the foot, shank, thigh, and trunk segments, respectively.…”