Task-specific training for improving propulsion symmetry and gait speed in people in the chronic phase after stroke: a proof-of-concept study.
J F Alingh, B E Groen, J F Kamphuis and 2 others
PMID 33892754WHAT IT FOUND
Propulsion symmetry improved by 7.9% after five weeks of robotic gait training with trainer feedback plus daily home exercises, and gait speed rose 7.2% after intervention.
Without a control group, this is proof of concept, not proof that any single component caused change.
Key findings
01The primary outcome, propulsion symmetry at self-selected speed, improved by 7.9% after the intervention and did not differ between post-intervention and follow-up.
02Paretic propulsive impulse increased by 8.1% after the intervention, while non-paretic propulsive impulse did not change significantly.
03Self-selected gait speed increased by 7.2% after the intervention and by another 3.6% between post-intervention and follow-up.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
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
There was no control group, so improvements cannot be separated from time-related changes. The study was a small proof-of-concept trial, so it was not designed to confirm effectiveness. Six participants did not complete the five-week follow-up, so follow-up results were based on 23 of the 29 included participants. Gait speed increased by 2.9% between the two baseline assessments, so baseline stability was not complete for that outcome. Participants had to walk 10 m without support or a walking aid and were FAC 3-5, so the findings do not apply to people with more severe walking impairment. The training included both LOPES II robotic gait training and daily home exercises, so the contribution of any single component cannot be separated. The subgroup with reduced peak paretic knee flexion had only 9 participants, and the change bordered significance (p = 0.051), so it cannot support a firm conclusion about knee flexion. The propulsion capacity score at baseline was not associated with training response, so it did not identify who would benefit most.
Declared interests
Funding was provided by Revalidatiefonds (NL) and Stichting Revalidatiegeneeskunde en Wetenschap (NL). The supplied text does not state any author conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that the robotic trainer alone caused the improvement. Participants also performed daily home exercises, and the study had no control group, so the contribution of any single component cannot be separated.