In order to achieve a level of community involvement and physical independence, being able to walk is the primary aim of many stroke survivors. It is therefore one of the most important goals during rehabilitation. Falls are common in all stages after stroke. Reported fall rates in the chronic stage after stroke range from 43 to 70% during one year follow up. Moreover, stroke survivors are more likely to become repeated fallers as compared to healthy older adults. Considering the devastating effects of falls in stroke survivors, adequate fall risk assessment is of paramount importance, as it is a first step in targeted fall prevention. As the majority of all falls occur during dynamic activities such as walking, fall risk could be assessed using gait analysis. It is only recent that technology enables us to monitor gait over several consecutive days, thereby allowing us to assess quality of gait in daily life. This thesis studies a variety of gait assessments with respect to their ability to assess fall risk in ambulatory chronic stroke survivors, and explores whether stroke survivors can improve their gait stability through PBT.
Background: A significant part of neurological rehabilitation focuses on facilitating the learning of motor skills. Training can adopt either (more) explicit or (more) implicit forms of motor learning. Gait is one of the most practiced motor skills within rehabilitation in people after stroke because it is an important criterion for discharge and requirement for functioning at home. Objective: The aim of this study was to describe the design of a randomized controlled study assessing the effects of implicit motor learning compared with the explicit motor learning in gait rehabilitation of people suffering from stroke. Methods: The study adopts a randomized, controlled, single-blinded study design. People after stroke will be eligible for participation when they are in the chronic stage of recovery (>6 months after stroke), would like to improve walking performance, have a slow walking speed (<1 m/s), can communicate in Dutch, and complete a 3-stage command. People will be excluded if they cannot walk a minimum of 10 m or have other additional impairments that (severely) influence gait. Participants will receive 9 gait-training sessions over a 3-week period and will be randomly allocated to an implicit or explicit group. Therapists are aware of the intervention they provide, and the assessors are blind to the intervention participants receive. Outcome will be assessed at baseline (T0), directly after the intervention (T1), and after 1 month (T2). The primary outcome parameter is walking velocity. Walking performance will be assessed with the 10-meter walking test, Dynamic Gait Index, and while performing a secondary task (dual task). Self-reported measures are the Movement Specific Reinvestment Scale, verbal protocol, Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale, and the Global Perceived Effect scale. A process evaluation will take place to identify how the therapy was perceived and identify factors that may have influenced the effectiveness of the intervention. Repeated measures analyses will be conducted to determine significant and clinical relevant differences between groups and over time. Results: Data collection is currently ongoing and results are expected in 2019. Conclusions: The relevance of the study as well as the advantages and disadvantages of several aspects of the chosen design are discussed, for example, the personalized approach and choice of measurements.
BackgroundGait analysis has been used for decades to quantify knee function in patients with knee osteoarthritis; however, it is unknown whether and to what extent inter-laboratory differences affect the comparison of gait data between studies. Therefore, the aim of this study was to perform an inter-laboratory comparison of knee biomechanics and muscle activation patterns during gait of patients with knee osteoarthritis.MethodsKnee biomechanics and muscle activation patterns from patients with knee osteoarthritis were analyzed, previously collected at Dalhousie University (DAL: n = 55) and Amsterdam UMC, VU medical center (VUmc: n = 39), using their in-house protocols. Additionally, one healthy male was measured at both locations. Both direct comparisons and after harmonization of components of the protocols were made. Inter-laboratory comparisons were quantified using statistical parametric mapping analysis and discrete gait parameters.ResultsThe inter-laboratory comparison showed offsets in the sagittal plane angles, moments and frontal plane angles, and phase shifts in the muscle activation patterns. Filter characteristics, initial contact identification and thigh anatomical frame definitions were harmonized between the laboratories. After this first step in protocol harmonization, the offsets in knee angles and sagittal plane moments remained, but the inter-laboratory comparison of the muscle activation patterns improved.ConclusionsInter-laboratory differences obstruct valid comparisons of gait datasets from patients with knee osteoarthritis between gait laboratories. A first step in harmonization of gait analysis protocols improved the inter-laboratory comparison. Further protocol harmonization is recommended to enable valid comparisons between labs, data-sharing and multicenter trials to investigate knee function in patients with knee osteoarthritis.
MULTIFILE
