Stroke paresis Chronic diseases
Conditions
Interventions
The study will include 28 subjects, divided into two groups called hemiparetic group and control group. The hemiparetic group will have 14 subjects with chronic hemiparesis due to unilateral stroke, o
Device
E02.760.169.063.500.387
Sponsors
Universidade Federal de São Carlos
Universidade de São Paulo
Eligibility
Age
40 Years to 75 Years
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: The individuals with hemiparesis were not linked to any rehabilitation programs and this experience was the first contact with robotic therapy. The following inclusion criteria were considered 6 or more months post-stroke; men or women aged between 50 and 75 years; low spasticity: less than level 3 on the modified Ashworth scale so that the individual would be able to perform the isokinetic test; and independent overground walking levels 2 and 5 according to the Functional Ambulation Categories. The control group participants had to score greater than 8 on the Physical Activity Questionnaire Basal, which indicates they were not sedentary. This is important because sedentary people have deleterious modifications in the neuromuscular system; individuals from the control group performed physical activity, mainly aerobic activities, at least 3 times a week. No further criteria regarding the physical activity level were used.
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria: Clinical signs of severe heart failure or chronic metabolic disease; severe cognitive or communication impairments; minimum score on the Mini-Mental State Examination according to the education level; [19] a history of lower limb injuries, deformity or contractures of the ankle joint; a smaller range of motion than 10o for dorsiflexion and 20o for plantarflexion; sensory deficits and neglect absence defined by clinical exams. Bell’s and Clock drawing tests were used to identify the neglect. [20, 21] Six or more errors indicate visuospatial hemineglect in the Bell´s test. Concerning the Clock drawing test, neglect patients are often found to omit numbers or to place all of the numbers on the right-hand side of the clock face.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Conclusion 2 found: Significative differences between groups, were found for torque, work and power, but not as pre and post treatment.;conclusion 3 found: There were no significant differences related to the means of muscle activation (RMS and median frequency) when considering the analyzes between groups and between the evaluations.;Conclusion 4 found: There were no significant differences related to the average game metric (game score, time to start the movement) when considering the analyzes between groups and between evaluations.;Conclusion 1: Differences in submaximal (Nm) sensorimotor control during dorsiflexion and plantarflexion; ;conclusion 2 : Differences in Torque (Nm) maximum, work (J) and power muscular (W);conclusion 3 : Differences in Muscle activation (RMS , median frequence);conclusion 4: Differences in metrics data of game (game score, trajectory error, time to initiation).;Outcome 1 found: Considering the steadiness test initial values, the hemiparesis group had a low performance during dorsiflexion and plantarflexion when compared to the control group. However, the hemiparesis group showed greater dexterity during dorsiflexion post-robotic assistance therapy. | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Secondary outcomes are not expected | — |
Countries
Brazil
Contacts
Public ContactMarcela;Thiago Silva Couto;de Russo
Universidade Federal de São Carlos;Universidade Federal de São Carlos
Outcome results
None listed