Effects of a novel walking training program with postural correction and visual feedback on walking function in patients with post-stroke hemiparesis

Abstract

[Purpose] This study aimed to elucidate the effects of a novel walking training program with postural correction and visual feedback on walking function in patients with post-stroke hemiparesis. [Subjects] Sixteen subjects were randomly allocated to either the experimental group (EG) or the control group (CG), with eight subjects in each. [Methods] EG and CG subjects performed a 30-min treadmill walking training exercise twice daily for 2 weeks. EG subjects also underwent postural correction using elastic bands and received visual feedback during walking. The 10-m walk test was performed, and gait parameters were measured using a gait analysis system. [Results] All parameters showed significant main effects for the group factor and time-by-group interactions. Significant main effects for the time factor were found in the stride length and stance phase ratios. [Conclusion] The novel walking training program with postural correction and visual feedback may improve walking function in patients with post-stroke hemiparesis.

Technology-Based Feedback and Its Efficacy in Improving Gait Parameters in Patients with Abnormal Gait: A Systematic Review

“…Relative to the population in this review, neurological patients were found in 15 out of 20 papers (75%). That is: 8 of stroke [ 5 , 7 , 16 , 19 , 21 , 39 , 41 , 42 ]; 1 of cerebral palsy [ 17 ]; 2 of hemiparesis [ 14 , 18 ]; 4 of Parkinson’s [ 19 , 23 , 38 , 40 ]; and 1 with incomplete spinal cord injury [ 15 ]. Byl et al [ 19 ] include stroke and Parkinson’s in the same research.…”

“…Six studies were based on load platforms [ 5 , 14 , 18 , 22 , 40 , 42 ], such as Smart Equitest ® [ 40 ], Gait Trainer ® [ 5 , 18 ] and Functional Trainer System ® [ 42 ]; and 5 on pressure sensors [ 11 , 19 , 22 , 26 , 39 ] for example Emed-Q100 ® [ 39 ] or Ped-Alert TM120 ® [ 21 ].…”

“…The combination of types of feedback used in descending order was: 55% visual, concurrent/immediate and prescriptive feedback [ 5 , 10 , 11 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 40 , 42 ]; 30% acoustic, terminal/retarded and descriptive [ 5 , 7 , 15 , 17 , 21 , 41 ]; 10% haptic, terminal/retarded and descriptive [ 22 , 26 ], acoustic, concurrent/immediate and descriptive [ 10 , 38 ] and visual, terminal/retarded and descriptive feedback [ 39 , 40 ]; 5% combined haptic, concurrent/immediate and prescriptive feedback [ 23 ] ( Figure 3 ).…”

“…The technology used to assess gait in the selected studies was as follows: 3D movement analysis systems [ 5 , 18 , 20 , 23 ]; platform or treadmill force sensors [ 10 , 11 , 22 , 26 , 40 ]; pressure sensors in insoles [ 19 ], platforms [ 26 ] and parallel bars [ 7 , 15 , 21 , 22 , 40 , 41 ], pulsometer and ergospirometry [ 16 ]; functional training system [ 42 ]; exoskeleton [ 15 ]; and Gaitway [ 11 ].…”

Systematic review of mirror therapy compared with conventional rehabilitation in upper extremity function in stroke survivors

“…Which consists of presenting visual feedback using a mirror placed in the sagittal plane of the patient, between the healthy upper limb and the affected upper limb and supported on a table (Jeong, Nam, Yi & Kim, ; Nilsen & DiRusso, ). So that the healthy limb is opposite to the mirror while the affected limb is on the dull side of the mirror (Jeong et al .; Nilsen & DiRusso; Won, Kim & Oh, ). At this point, the patient should be placed so that he sees only the reflection of his healthy upper limb in the mirror, giving the patient the illusion or perspective that the affected limb is ‘working’ correctly (Deconinck et al .; Ezendam et al .; Nilsen & DiRusso).…”