This Article Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Cooke, E. V. Articles by Pomeroy, V. M. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Cooke, E. V. Articles by Pomeroy, V. M. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Efficacy of Functional Strength Training on Restoration of Lower-Limb Motor Function Early After Stroke: Phase I Randomized Controlled Trial

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: v.pomeroy{at}uea.ac.uk.

	Abstract

After stroke, physiotherapy can promote brain reorganization and motor recovery. Combining muscle strength and functional training (functional strength training, FST) may be beneficial. The aim of the authors was to compare FST with conventional physiotherapy (CPT) while controlling for the potential confounder of therapy intensity in a multicenter,randomized controlled observer-blind trial. The mean age of the participants was 68.3 (standard deviation [SD] = 12.03) years at a mean of 34 (SD = 20) days after stroke, with mean peak paretic knee extension torque (torque) of 22 (SD = 25) Nm. The estimated sample size was 102 to detect a between-group difference of 0.2 m/s in walking speed.After baseline measures, participants were allocated randomly to CPT or CPT + CPT or CPT + FST for 6 weeks. Additional experimental therapy was provided for up to 1 hour a day, 4 times each week. Outcomes were measured 6 weeks after baseline and at follow-up 12 weeks thereafter. Measures included walking speed, knee extensor torque, and functional mobility (Rivermead). At outcome, both extraintensity groups showed greater increases in walking speed than the CPT group, but this reached significance only for the CPT + CPT group (P = .031). The CPT + CPT group also had a greater number of participants who walked at 0.8 m/s or above. No significant differences were observed for torque about the knee or for the Rivermead score. At follow-up,no significant differences were observed. These phase I results justify a subsequent trial of CPT + CPT versus CPT + FST.

First published on August 24, 2009
Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 2009, doi:10.1177/1545968309343216


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?