A Novel Body Weight-Supported Postural Perturbation Module for Gait and Balance Rehabilitation After Stroke: Preliminary Evaluation Study.
Amanda Meyer, Henry Charles Hrdlicka, Erica Cutler and 5 others
PMID 35080495WHAT IT FOUND
Adding automated balance perturbations to a body weight support system was safe and feasible for stroke inpatients.
It did not significantly improve balance scores compared to standard body weight support alone, though both groups improved more than historical controls.
Key findings
01Participants receiving the perturbation module did not show significantly different Berg Balance Scale post-intervention scores compared to those receiving standard body weight support alone.
02Both body weight support groups demonstrated greater percent change in balance scores compared to a historical control group that did not use the system.
03The intervention was generally safe, with most participants tolerating perturbations well, although two participants in the perturbation group withdrew due to injuries unrelated to the specific module mechanics.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study was a small pilot with only 29 participants, limiting statistical power to detect differences between the two active groups. The historical control group had significantly higher baseline balance scores than the intervention groups, making direct comparisons difficult and potentially biasing the percent change analysis. The study was conducted during the early COVID-19 pandemic, which led to expedited discharges and forced some participants to complete two sessions in one day, potentially affecting the dose-response relationship. Blinding was not possible, and the primary outcome (BBS) was assessed by the participants' own therapists at discharge, which may introduce bias. The contribution of the perturbation module cannot be separated from the standard body weight support training, as both groups received the latter.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The study was conducted at Gaylord Specialty Health Care, and the ZeroG system is manufactured by Aretech, LLC, but the text does not state that the manufacturer funded the study or wrote the manuscript.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the lack of significant difference between the two BWSS groups as evidence that perturbations are ineffective. The study was underpowered, and the historical control comparison was flawed due to baseline differences. The main finding is safety and feasibility, not efficacy.