A comparison of regular rehabilitation and regular rehabilitation with supported treadmill ambulation training for acute stroke patients

Inácio Teixeira da Cunha Filho, Peter A.C. Lim, Huma Qureshy, Helene Henson, Trilok Monga, Elizabeth J. Protas

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

86 Scopus citations

Abstract

The purpose of this pilot study was to compare differences in motor recovery between regular rehabilitation (REG), and regular rehabilitation with supported treadmill ambulation training (STAT) using the performance on a bicycle exercise test and the locomotor scale of the Functional Independence Measure (FIM-L). Twelve patients with acute strokes were randomly assigned to either REG or STAT for 2 to 3 weeks. The STAT group received daily gait training utilizing a treadmill with partial support of body weight. After intervention, the STAT group had higher oxygen consumption (11.34 ± 0.88 vs 8.32 ± 0.88 ml/kg/min, p=0.039), total workload (58.75 ± 7.09 vs 45.42 ± 7.09 watts, p=ns), and total time pedaling the bike (288.91 ± 30.61 vs 211.42 ± 30.61 s, p=ns) compared to the REG group. The FIM-L scores were not different for the two groups. This pilot study suggests that the STAT intervention is a promising technique for acute stroke rehabilitation, and that future studies with larger sample sizes are warranted to establish the effectiveness of this intervention.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)245-255
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Rehabilitation Research and Development
Volume38
Issue number2
StatePublished - Dec 1 2001

    Fingerprint

Keywords

  • Acute stroke
  • Bike stress test
  • Rehabilitation
  • Supported treadmill ambulation training

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Rehabilitation

Cite this

Teixeira da Cunha Filho, I., Lim, P. A. C., Qureshy, H., Henson, H., Monga, T., & Protas, E. J. (2001). A comparison of regular rehabilitation and regular rehabilitation with supported treadmill ambulation training for acute stroke patients. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 38(2), 245-255.