辅助骑车治疗对脑卒中后运动功能的急性影响:一项初步研究。

IF 1.5 Q3 REHABILITATION Rehabilitation Research and Practice Pub Date : 2019-02-13 eCollection Date: 2019-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2019/9028714
Simon D Holzapfel, Pamela R Bosch, Chong D Lee, Patricia S Pohl, Monica Szeto, Brittany Heyer, Shannon D Ringenbach
{"title":"辅助骑车治疗对脑卒中后运动功能的急性影响:一项初步研究。","authors":"Simon D Holzapfel,&nbsp;Pamela R Bosch,&nbsp;Chong D Lee,&nbsp;Patricia S Pohl,&nbsp;Monica Szeto,&nbsp;Brittany Heyer,&nbsp;Shannon D Ringenbach","doi":"10.1155/2019/9028714","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Stroke is the most common cause of long-term disability in the United States (US). Assisted Cycling Therapy (ACT) at cadences of about 80 rpm has been associated with improvements in motor and clinical function in other clinical populations. The acute effects of ACT on motor function of persons with stroke have not been investigated.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The primary purpose of this cross-over trial was to compare the effects of ACT, voluntary cycling (VC), and no cycling (NC) on upper (Box and Blocks Test) and lower extremity motor function (Lower Extremity Motor Coordination Test) in adults with chronic stroke (age: 60 ± 16 years; months since stroke: 96 ± 85). The secondary purpose was to examine average cycling cadence and ratings of perceived exertion as predictors of change in motor function following the exercise session.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty-two participants (female = 6, male = 16) completed one 20-min session each of ACT (mean cadence = 79.5 rpm, VC (mean cadence = 51.5 rpm), and NC on separate days in quasi-counterbalanced fashion).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Main effects of intervention did not differ between ACT and VC. Within-intervention analyses revealed significant (p < 0.05) pre- to posttest changes in all outcome measures for ACT but only in the Lower Extremity Motor Coordination Test on the non-paretic side for VC. Trend analyses revealed a positive relationship between average ACT cadences and improvements in upper and lower extremity motor function (p < 0.05). A positive relationship between average VC cadences and lower extremity function was also revealed (p < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ACT and VC produced similar acute improvements in paretic and non-paretic lower extremity motor function whereas changes in upper extremity motor function were more limited. Faster cycling cadences seem to be associated with greater acute effects.</p>","PeriodicalId":45585,"journal":{"name":"Rehabilitation Research and Practice","volume":"2019 ","pages":"9028714"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2019/9028714","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Acute Effects of Assisted Cycling Therapy on Post-Stroke Motor Function: A Pilot Study.\",\"authors\":\"Simon D Holzapfel,&nbsp;Pamela R Bosch,&nbsp;Chong D Lee,&nbsp;Patricia S Pohl,&nbsp;Monica Szeto,&nbsp;Brittany Heyer,&nbsp;Shannon D Ringenbach\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2019/9028714\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Stroke is the most common cause of long-term disability in the United States (US). Assisted Cycling Therapy (ACT) at cadences of about 80 rpm has been associated with improvements in motor and clinical function in other clinical populations. The acute effects of ACT on motor function of persons with stroke have not been investigated.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The primary purpose of this cross-over trial was to compare the effects of ACT, voluntary cycling (VC), and no cycling (NC) on upper (Box and Blocks Test) and lower extremity motor function (Lower Extremity Motor Coordination Test) in adults with chronic stroke (age: 60 ± 16 years; months since stroke: 96 ± 85). The secondary purpose was to examine average cycling cadence and ratings of perceived exertion as predictors of change in motor function following the exercise session.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty-two participants (female = 6, male = 16) completed one 20-min session each of ACT (mean cadence = 79.5 rpm, VC (mean cadence = 51.5 rpm), and NC on separate days in quasi-counterbalanced fashion).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Main effects of intervention did not differ between ACT and VC. Within-intervention analyses revealed significant (p < 0.05) pre- to posttest changes in all outcome measures for ACT but only in the Lower Extremity Motor Coordination Test on the non-paretic side for VC. Trend analyses revealed a positive relationship between average ACT cadences and improvements in upper and lower extremity motor function (p < 0.05). A positive relationship between average VC cadences and lower extremity function was also revealed (p < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ACT and VC produced similar acute improvements in paretic and non-paretic lower extremity motor function whereas changes in upper extremity motor function were more limited. Faster cycling cadences seem to be associated with greater acute effects.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45585,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Rehabilitation Research and Practice\",\"volume\":\"2019 \",\"pages\":\"9028714\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-02-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2019/9028714\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Rehabilitation Research and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/9028714\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2019/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rehabilitation Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/9028714","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:中风是美国最常见的导致长期残疾的原因。在其他临床人群中,辅助循环治疗(ACT)的节奏约为80 rpm,与运动和临床功能的改善有关。ACT对中风患者运动功能的急性影响尚未研究。目的:本交叉试验的主要目的是比较ACT、自愿骑车(VC)和不骑车(NC)对慢性脑卒中成人(年龄:60±16岁;中风后月数:96±85)。第二个目的是检查平均骑行节奏和感知运动强度评分作为运动后运动功能变化的预测指标。方法:22名参与者(女性= 6,男性= 16)在不同的日子以准平衡的方式完成ACT(平均节奏= 79.5 rpm)、VC(平均节奏= 51.5 rpm)和NC各20分钟的训练。结果:ACT与VC干预的主要效果无显著性差异。干预内分析显示,ACT的所有结果测量在测试前和测试后都有显著变化(p < 0.05),但只有VC的非双亲侧下肢运动协调测试发生了显著变化。趋势分析显示平均ACT频率与上肢和下肢运动功能改善呈正相关(p < 0.05)。平均VC频率与下肢功能呈正相关(p < 0.05)。结论:ACT和VC对麻痹性和非麻痹性下肢运动功能的急性改善效果相似,而对上肢运动功能的改善更为有限。更快的循环节奏似乎与更大的急性效应有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Acute Effects of Assisted Cycling Therapy on Post-Stroke Motor Function: A Pilot Study.

Background: Stroke is the most common cause of long-term disability in the United States (US). Assisted Cycling Therapy (ACT) at cadences of about 80 rpm has been associated with improvements in motor and clinical function in other clinical populations. The acute effects of ACT on motor function of persons with stroke have not been investigated.

Objectives: The primary purpose of this cross-over trial was to compare the effects of ACT, voluntary cycling (VC), and no cycling (NC) on upper (Box and Blocks Test) and lower extremity motor function (Lower Extremity Motor Coordination Test) in adults with chronic stroke (age: 60 ± 16 years; months since stroke: 96 ± 85). The secondary purpose was to examine average cycling cadence and ratings of perceived exertion as predictors of change in motor function following the exercise session.

Methods: Twenty-two participants (female = 6, male = 16) completed one 20-min session each of ACT (mean cadence = 79.5 rpm, VC (mean cadence = 51.5 rpm), and NC on separate days in quasi-counterbalanced fashion).

Results: Main effects of intervention did not differ between ACT and VC. Within-intervention analyses revealed significant (p < 0.05) pre- to posttest changes in all outcome measures for ACT but only in the Lower Extremity Motor Coordination Test on the non-paretic side for VC. Trend analyses revealed a positive relationship between average ACT cadences and improvements in upper and lower extremity motor function (p < 0.05). A positive relationship between average VC cadences and lower extremity function was also revealed (p < 0.05).

Conclusion: ACT and VC produced similar acute improvements in paretic and non-paretic lower extremity motor function whereas changes in upper extremity motor function were more limited. Faster cycling cadences seem to be associated with greater acute effects.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
审稿时长
19 weeks
期刊介绍: Rehabilitation Research and Practice is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies in all areas of physical medicine and rehabilitation. The journal focuses on improving and restoring functional ability and quality of life to those with physical impairments or disabilities. In addition, articles looking at techniques to assess and study disabling conditions will be considered.
期刊最新文献
Physical Health and Socioeconomic Status in Ambulatory Adults With Bilateral Spastic Cerebral Palsy. Comparing the Physiological Responses to the 6-Minute Walk Test, Timed Up and Go Test, and Treadmill Cardiopulmonary Exercise Test. Virtual Reality Technology for Physical and Cognitive Function Rehabilitation in People With Multiple Sclerosis. Categories of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale Activities in Chronic Neck Pain and Their Relationship to the Neck Disability Index. The NewGait Rehabilitative Device Corrects Gait Deviations in Individuals With Foot Drop.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1