Stroke. Ataxia. Balance. Robot-Assisted Gait Training.
Conditions
Interventions
All participants were examined at two time: before and after the protocol treatment was completed.
The Berg Balance Scale (BBS), the Functional Independence Measure (FIM), the Timed Up and Go test (T
Device
Other
E02.779
G11.427.690
I01.409.418.750.600.480.461
C10.597.350.090
Sponsors
UNIFESP- Universidade Federal do Estado de São Paulo
Associação de Assistência a Criança Deficiente
Eligibility
Age
18 Years to 80 Years
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: Stroke survivors with ataxia. Minimum time of injury over 1 year. Clinical stability. Presence of hemiplegia or quadriplegia motor impairment. Both genders and who were at least 18 years of age were accepted and 80 years maximum. A physician examined all the patients and described their diagnosis in medical records.
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria: Physical disability that made training with the robotic device unsafe such as cognitive impairment. Dementia. Aphasia. Presence of other orthopedic or neurosurgical problems in the lower extremities. Pressure ulcers on the hips or lower extremities. Weight higher than 120 kg. Ataxia originated by progressive disease.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| At the end of the proposed protocol, individuals in both groups were expected to show improvement in balance, coordination, and overall functional independence when comparing the means of the functional scales used as an evaluation parameter: BERG, TUG, SARA and MIF. It was also expected that the group submited to robotic gait training assistance - TMAR would obtain better results when compared to the group that was only submitted to conventional gait training - TMRS. We assumed the following sample calculation with 5% of error, 95 % of level of confidence , number of elements in the universe of the research based on already described bibliographical references of 795,000 cases of stroke, these only 3% affecting posterior circulation . The sample calculus resulting in 45 individuals.;When compared the means of the BERG, TUG, SARA and MIF functional scales,it was observed that both groups obtained improvement in balance, coordination and functional independence in general activities. However, when comparative was done between groups: TMRS versus TMAR, no statistical difference was found to indicate that one of these interventions was superior to another. A total of 19 patients were enrolled in this study. All parametric results are illustrated as the mean ± standard deviation for each group in the tables and text. A level of significance of P < 0.05 was accepted for this study. The data were analyzed using change scores from pre- to post-training with intragroup and between-group comparisons. A Wilcoxon test was used for intragroup comparisons and a Mann-Whitney test for between-group comparison | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Not expected secondary outcomes. | — |
Countries
Brazil
Contacts
Public ContactMarcia Belas dos Santos
UNIFESP- Universidade Federal do Estado de São Paulo
Outcome results
None listed