Printer Friendly

Effect of task specific exercises, gait training, and visual biofeedback on equinovarus gait among individuals with stroke: randomized controlled study.

1. Introduction

Gait deficits are associated with significant functional limitations. They can make it difficult for individuals after stroke to move about in their home [1]. Community access requires not only the ability to walkbut also the ability to manage uneven surfaces, elevations, and curbs [2]. After stroke, sensorimotor impairments including proprioceptive deficits, muscle weakness, spasticity, and stereotyped movement interfering with normal gait are common and are associated with an increased risk of falling [2, 3]. Although hemiparetic gait has been investigated in many studies and many rehabilitation methods have been developed in order to improve motor recovery, the cause and effect relationship between impairment caused by stroke and poststroke gait pattern has yet tobefullyunderstood 4,5].

Hemiparetic gait pattern is characterized by being stereotyped with reduced weight bearing on the paretic lower limb (LL). Contacting the floor while the foot is flat is one of the most common stance phase kinematics disturbances. Overactivity or shortening of plantar flexor muscles at swing phase limits dorsiflexion of the ankle and causes the foot to be flat at initial contact. Increased invertors spasticity additionally allows only the lateral border of the foot to contact the floor first, giving the equinovarus foot placement [6, 7].

Previous studies have shown that the effects of muscle strengthening in seated position among poststroke people lead to inconsistent effects on gait [8, 9]. Moreover, Kim et al. state that intervention aimed at increasing strength does not result in improvements in walking [10].

Task specific training programs incorporate the practice of functional movements in a real situation with an objective to help patients to gain optimal control strategies for improving motor control [11]. In such programs, the patient is put in a situation in which the weakened muscle would normally function [12]. For task specific training, the two main approaches are found in the literature to improve gait pattern. One approach is treadmill training. The other one is intensive practice of a wide variety of functional mobility tasks. These mobility tasks can be provided through functional strengthening and endurance components [13]. Many studies concluded that having more functional ways of strengthening the muscles, such as in the context of task-specific gait training, might lead to a greater carryover effect and impact on gait [8-10]. Gait pattern has been shown to be improved in patients with stroke after a combined task-specific training program and specific strengthening exercises [14]. In the same context, functional MRI showed a positive effect of LL task specific training programs on inducing use-dependent plastic changes of brains [15,16].

Biofeedback (BFB) is information provided from an external source, which is additional to the perception of the mover. BFB can be verbal or nonverbal. It can be provided concurrently, immediately following, or much later than the action [17]. BFB can be considered as the essence of exercise therapy for patients after stroke to compensate for the inefficient intrinsic feedback. Visual BFB from a monitor connected to load platforms was used for balance and weight shifting training in two patients after stroke. The results showed that ability to shift weight onto the affected leg improved only when training with this device and not with conventional therapy [18, 19]. Moreover, in a controlled long-term trial with stroke patients, stance symmetry, gross motor function, and activities of daily living showed a significantly greater improvement with those who received visual BFB from a monitor connected to a load platform [20]. Based on the fact that real-time BFB can facilitate a return to normal function in people following stroke [21], we sought to implement an approach using both task specific training (intensive practice of a wide variety of functional mobility tasks) and visual BFB to correct the equinovarus foot placement after stroke. In this study, we used task specific exercises, gait training, and a new method of visual BFB to test the hypothesis that patients after stroke are able to control distal spastic/weak muscles and correct equinovarus foot placement.

2. Subjects and Methods

Sixteen subjects (4 females and 12 males) with ischemic stroke represented the sample of the study. The patients were recruited from the Physical Therapy Department, King Khalid Hospital, Hail, KSA. The study was approved by the University of Hail Local Ethical Committee. The participants were required to meet the following criteria for inclusion in the study: having history of unilateral first ever stroke causing hemiparesis with duration of illness not less than 3 months, being medically stable, having the ability to understand procedures of experiment and give study consent form, and being in at least stage 4 of motor recovery of foot according to Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment with spasticity less than grade 2 by Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS). The subject should also be able to walk independently with or without assistive devices for six minutes. Patients with LL sensory impairment or cognitive, mental, and visual deficits were excluded from the study. Patients with ankle, knee contractures or who were receiving any muscle relaxant were also excluded from the study. After examining 32 patients, 18 patients were fit to participate in the study, two of them refused to participate in the study because they are living in rural areas away from the city. For treatment allocation, computer-generated random numbers were used to assign patients to two equal groups (G: and [G.sub.2]). Allocation in either study or control group was concealed from the patients and researchers (Figure 1).

Before randomization and after giving study consent form, physical examination was done for all participants. It included a review of medical history, mentation assessment (using Mini Mental State Examination), neurological examination, and level of activities using an International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment was used to detect the stage of foot, leg motor recovery, and the functional level (activity inventory) [22]. Spasticity was measured using the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS).

A capacitance-based pressure platform (emed-q100, GmbH, Novel Munich, Germany) was used for detecting the pattern of foot placement. Reliability of the platform has been proved by Putti et al. [23]. The pressure platform was 700 x 403 mm, with 6080 sensors and resolution of four sensors per [cm.sup.2] when data are collected at 100 Hz. After demonstration, participants were asked to walk barefoot across the platform at a walking speed similar to the usual. The participants were asked to focus on a rounded sticker fixed on both directions of walking at the same level to standardize gaze away from the pressure platform during measurement. As we used a long walkway, participants were asked to take four steps prior to hitting the platform and continue afterward. These procedures were repeated until five passes were obtained (five recordings of affected foot). A trial was repeated if the foot is placed near to or on the edges of the platform. The data from an average of the five steps on affected foot were used to represent the individual's dynamic foot placement. For analysis of the force and time-related measures, the foot was divided into 10 regions hindfoot, midfoot, first metatarsal, second metatarsal, third metatarsals, forth metatarsals, fifth metatarsals, big toe, second toe, and toes 3, 4, and 5. Novel's foot report (Novel, Munich, Germany) was used to provide mathematical measurement of the foot placement in addition to colored graphs simulating foot placement. These reports were created immediately after the data collection/measurement. Three measurements were done for each patient, at baseline (1st measurement), after treatment (2nd measurement), and one month after the end of the treatment (3rd measurement).

Patients in the study group ([G.sub.1]) received intensive mobility training which included manual stretching, muscle-specific progressive-resistive exercise, balance training, and walking program (50-70% age adjusted heart rate maximum) with BFB from the E-med pedography. Manual prolonged stretch technique was applied for the calf and hip adductor muscles with holding time of 30 seconds. Manual resistance exercises were followed by theraband strengthening for foot evertors, ankle dorsiflexors, knee flexors, hip extensors, hip abductors, and knee extensors. The rational for using manual resistance is to ensure that the participant is doing the intended movements without any substitutions or interference of associated reactions and being isokinetic in nature. As the participant is able to master the proposed movement, therabands were used for increasing the number of repetitions and resistance. Functional strengthening exercises were also used for evertors and hip abductors. Patients were asked to do abduction while standing against a wall by sliding the heel against the wall with weight cuffs just above the ankle. Sideway walking onto blocks was used for the same groups of muscles. An exercise like horse pawing was used for increasing knee flexors and planter flexors strength as preparation for gait training [24]. With fully extended knees, patients were also asked to raise, hold, and lower the forefoot from the floor midway between eversion and inversion while standing against wall. Knee taps to the wall and wall calf stretch exercises were practiced for stretching the calf muscles and forward pivot training. For balance training, step up and sideways onto a step, chair rise, marching, kicking a ball laterally, stops and turns while walking were used. These exercises are applied for 90 minutes 5 times a week for 8 weeks.

Participants in G: received also walking program (5070% age adjusted heart rate maximum) with biofeedback from the pedography. During gait training, the patient was instructed to step over the E-med platform five times. Data base professional was used for foot placement analysis. The obtained results were used as a teaching material. The colors of the graphs (Figure 2) and foot rollover were the key point for the patients to understand the impairment of foot placement.

Patients allocated in the control group ([G.sub.2]) received a program of strengthening exercises for the foot evertors and ankle dorsiflexors in addition to prolonged stretching of the calf muscles. The patients also received gait training with cones between the parallel bars. Participants were given five sessions per week for 8 weeks, 50 minutes for each session. A solid ankle foot orthosis (AFO) was also used as a traditional treatment of the foot equinovarus deformity. The patients were instructed to use the AFO for at least eight hours a day. For either groups, the treatment programs were done by a neurophysiotherapists.

Statistical Analysis. Descriptive statistics were calculated to summarize the demographic characteristics of the sample and all outcome measures at baseline (1st measurement), postintervention (2nd measurement), and one month after intervention (3rd measurement) for each group. Demographic data was compared between groups by f-test (P [less than or equal to] 0.05). Repeated measures of ANOVA were employed to calculate, within subjects, effect of treatment programs in the study and control group at probability level equal to or less than 0.05. Between groups, effects of the applied treatment programs were compared using f-test with level of significance set at P [less than or equal to] 0.05.

3. Results

The characteristics of the participants are shown in Table 1. The two groups were matched for age and sex (P = 0.213, 1.00), body weight (P = 0.513), body height (P = 0.163), shoe size (P = 0.732), and time since onset of stroke (P = 0.442). There were nine patients with right sided and seven with left sided hemiparesis (P = 0.351). Hypertension and diabetes mellitus were represented in both groups with a percentage of 62.5% and 25% in group 1 and 75% and 37.5% in group 2, respectively. Fifty percent of the participants in group 2 were smokers before the onset of stroke, while 62% of people who were presented in group 1 used to smoke. Obesity and level of activity were equally represented in both groups.

Clinical examination of the participants revealed that the participants of both groups have an increase of muscle tone (spasticity) of grades 1 and 1+ MAS. According to Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment, participants in both groups were in stages 4 and 5 of foot and leg motor recovery, respectively. Activity inventory was employed to assess the participants' functional level, which was 6 in both groups (Table 2).

A repeated measure of ANOVA was employed to measure, within subjects, changes after treatments. In study group (G:), there were significant changes observed in the maximum force and contact time in different foot areas. There was a significant increase of the maximum force (P = 0.001) underneath the hindfoot with significant increase (P = 0.001) in the contact time indicating restoration of the initial contact of the foot with the ground. For the first, second, and fifth metatarsal heads, there was a highly significant change (P = 0.001) after the application of BFB and motor relearning therapies, which extended to 4 weeks after the end of the treatment time. A less but significant change was observed in the contact time and maximum force of the third and fourth metatarsal heads. The contact time of the five metatarsals was significantly lower (P = 0.001) than the baseline measurement. In the control group, statistical analysis of the results revealed a minimal, nonsignificant change in the contact time and maximum force of the ten anatomical areas of the foot after treatment and the follow-up measurements (Tables 3 and 4).

A paired f-test was used for enlightening the difference in improvement between groups (Tables 3 and 4). There were nonsignificant differences among the groups in the baseline measurements of the contact time and force recorded at different regions of the foot. For the hindfoot, there was a highly significant difference in both contact time and maximum force after treatment which last to the follow-up measurement (P = 0.001). In the same context, significant differences were observed in the contact time (P = 0.001, 0.035) and maximum force (P = 0.004, 0.001) recorded underneath the fourth metatarsal head. Significant differences were also observed in the contact time (P = 0.001) and maximum force (P = 0.001) recorded underneath the fifth metatarsal head after treatment and follow-up measures. Less but significant differences were observed in the contact time (P = 0.026, 0.022) and maximum force (P = 0.001) recorded underneath the first metatarsal head after treatment and follow-up measures. For the second metatarsal head, there were significant differences in the contact time (P = 0.023, 0.024) and maximum force (P = 0.037, 0.008).

4. Discussion

We report the results of a therapeutic program that included task-specific exercises and gait training in combination with visual BFB. This study represents a novel application of a pedography for providing visual BFB during walking for correction of equinovarus foot placement after stroke. Inadequate strength and hypertonia of the muscles controlling the foot result in disturbance in force distribution among the foot regions. In this study, before treatment there was an increased force distribution under the fourth and fifth metatarsal heads which is significantly decreased after treatment. On the other hand, the lowered force under the first and second metatarsals is significantly increased after treatment. In the same context, the recorded force under the hindfoot is significantly increased after treatment. Figure 2 shows the difference between the foot placement before and after treatment. Before treatment, the center of pressure started at the area of the fourth and fifth metatarsal heads. After treatment, the center of foot pressure advancement started at the heel and midway throughout the forefoot indicating restoration of the initial contact. This also indicates that the foot is placed midway between inversion and eversion. This noticeable persistent change (as indicated by follow-up measure one month after treatment) of the foot placement can be attributed to an improvement in motor control of the paretic foot and an increased ability to do movements with greater selectivity at the ankle and foot while walking. This improvement is a result of using task-specific intensive training in association with visual BFB training which enhances the motor control. Our results are in close agreement with Perry and Rodgers et al. The authors reported that improvement in foot placement is a result of enhanced neuromuscular responsiveness in the paretic limb and using the limb in a more controlled manner [25, 26]. This is also consistent with Mizelle et al. who stated that improved motor unit activation associated with increased gait key muscle functional strength is the cause behind improved gait pattern after stroke [27]. Our findings are in general agreement with those who reported greater improvements in functional abilities, including transfers and gait, following treatment that included biofeedback/force plate training [28, 29].

The hindfoot time of contact with the floor is significantly increased in the study group. On the other hand, the forefoot time of contact with the floor is lowered. This is an indication that the early stance time is increased not only as a sequence of increased ability to control the calf muscle spasticity but also as a result of enhanced eccentric control over the forward pivoting of the leg on the foot. Increasing the hindfoot contact time means restoration of the initial contact, loading response, and midstance subphases. This is the opposite of the hemiparetic gait pattern with equinovarus foot [30].

The effects of the treatment still persisted at follow-up, indicating that the process of motor relearning has been completed with improved progression and timing of movement. This can be attributed to the effect of repeated practice of a walking with extrinsic BFB. We employed the visual BFB as a part of functional training to provide specific information that can be used to adapt the next attempt of walking over sixty hours of intensive training. This is consistent with Geiger et al. and Van Peppen et al., who stated that motor learning and recovery indicate that intervention should be meaningful, task-specific, and tailored to the person's capacity and interests and provide sufficient repetition and challenge to induce training effects [30, 31].

Utilization of the pedography as a source of foot placement biofeedback is considered a good shortcut for the patient to understand how he/she places the foot on the floor. The BFB applied in this study is different from other forms of visual BFB. It is task specific, provides accurate and reliable scanning of the foot placement during walking, and provides easy, understandable information for the patient to correct his/her foot placement. It is also unlike the electromyographic BFB, which depends on the electrical activities of the muscles during static situations in most of its applications. For these reasons, BFB is of great importance for motor relearning [32]. This is consistent with De Weerdt et al. and Sackley et al., who used load platforms linked to a computer to train stroke patients' balance and weight shift with visual BFB from a monitor. The experiment showed that there is improvement in the ability to shift weight onto the affected leg only when training with this device and not with conventional therapy or another feedback training of the arm [18-20].

In this study, we have a limitation of a small sample size; nevertheless, we were able to show the benefits of using task specific biofeedback and exercises for correcting foot placement after stroke. This trend of changes that we observed warrants further study with a larger sample size and wearable technology to enable outdoor activities and a more discerning statistical analysis.

5. Conclusions

This study offered a real functional situation for training, which has a positive influence on gait after stroke. Pedographic visual BFB in combination with task specific training can be used effectively for correction of equinovarus gait among stroke patients.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.


[1] I. T. Cunha, P A. Lim, H. Henson, T. Monga, H. Qureshy, and E. J. Protas, "Performance-based gait tests for acute stroke patients," American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, vol. 81, no. 11, pp. 848-856, 2002.

[2] R. Verma, K. N. Arya, P. Sharma, and R. K. Garg, "Understanding gait control in post-stroke: implications for management," Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 14-21, 2012.

[3] J. B. Dingwell, J. P. Cusumano, D. Sternad, and P. R. Cavanagh, "Slower speeds in patients with diabetic neuropathy lead to improved local dynamic stability of continuous overground walking," Journal of Biomechanics, vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 1269-1277, 2000.

[4] E. B. Titianova, K. Pitkanen, A. Paakkonen, J. Sivenius, and I. M. Tarkka, "Gait characteristics and functional ambulation profile in patients with chronic unilateral stroke," American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, vol. 82, no. 10, pp. 778-786, 2003.

[5] G. Yavuzer, A. Kucukdeveci, T. Arasil, and A. Elhan, "Rehabilitation of stroke patients: clinical profile and functional outcome," American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 80, no. 4, pp. 250-255, 2001.

[6] L. Bensoussan, S. Mesure, J.-M. Viton, and A. Delarque, "Kinematic and kinetic asymmetries in hemiplegic patients' gait initiation patterns," Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 287-294, 2006.

[7] J. L. McGinley, M. E. Morris, K. M. Greenwood, P. A. Goldie, and S. J. Olney, "Accuracy of clinical observations of push-off during gait after stroke," Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 87, no. 6, pp. 779-785, 2006.

[8] M.-H. Milot, S. Nadeau, D. Gravel, and D. Bourbonnais, "Effect of increases in plantarflexor and hip flexor muscle strength on the levels of effort during gait in individuals with hemiparesis," Clinical Biomechanics, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 415-423, 2008.

[9] M. H. Milot, S. Nadeau, D. Gravel, and D. Bourbonnais, "Gait performance and lower-limb muscle strength improved in both Upper-Limb and Lower-Limb Isokinetic training programs in individuals with chronic stroke," ISRN Rehabilitation, vol. 2013, Article ID 929758, 10 pages, 2013.

[10] C. M. Kim, J. J. Eng, D. L. MacIntyre, and A. S. Dawson, "Effects of isokinetic strength training on walking in persons with stroke: a double-blind controlled pilot study," Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 265-273, 2001.

[11] A. M. Gentile, "Skill acquisition: action, movement and neuromotor processes," in Movement Sciences: Foundation for Physical Therapy in Rehabilitation, J. H. Carr and R. B. Shepherd, Eds., pp. 111-187, Aspen, Gaithersburg, Md, USA, 2nd edition, 2000.

[12] C. M. Dean, C. L. Richards, and F. Malouin, "Task-related circuit training improves performance of locomotor tasks in chronic stroke: a randomized, controlled pilot trial," Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 81, no. 4, pp. 409-417, 2000.

[13] J. J. Eng and P.-F. Tang, "Gait training strategies to optimize walking ability in people with stroke: a synthesis of the evidence," Expert Review of Neuro therapeutics, vol. 7, no. 10, pp. 1417-1436, 2007.

[14] C. Monger, J. H. Carr, and V. Fowler, "Evaluation of a home-based: exercise and training programme to improve sit-to-stand in patients with chronic stroke," Clinical Rehabilitation, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 361-367, 2002.

[15] J. R. Carey, K. M. Anderson, T. J. Kimberley, S. M. Lewis, E. J. Auerbach, and K. Ugurbil, "fMRI analysis of ankle movement tracking training in subject with stroke," Experimental Brain Research, vol. 154, no. 3, pp. 281-290, 2004.

[16] B. H. Dobkin, A. Firestine, M. West, K. Saremi, and R. Woods, "Ankle dorsiflexion as an fMRI paradigm to assay motor control for walking during rehabilitation," NeuroImage, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 370-381, 2004.

[17] A. Hartveld and J. R. Hegarty, "Augmented feedback and physiotherapy practice," Physiotherapy, vol. 82, no. 8, pp. 480-490, 1996.

[18] W. De Weerdt, M. Harrison, P. Smith, D. Hoodless, and I. Pottage, "The Nottingham balance platform: a practical application of microcomputers in physiotherapy," Physiotherapy Practice, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 9-17, 1988.

[19] W. D. deWeerdt, S. M. Crossley, N. Lincoln, and M. A. Harrison, "Restoration of balance in stroke patients: single case design study," Clinical Rehabilitation, vol. 3, pp. 139-147, 1989.

[20] C. M. Sackley, B. I. Baguley, S. Gent, and P. Hodgson, "The use of a balance performance monitor in the treatment of weight-bearing and weight-transference problems after stroke," Physiotherapy, vol. 78, no. 12, pp. 907-913, 1992.

[21] J. R. Franz, M. Maletis, and R. Kram, "Real-time feedback enhances forward propulsion during walking in old adults," Clinical Biomechanics, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 68-74, 2014.

[22] C. Gowland, P. Stratford, M. Ward et al., "Measuring physical impairment and disability with the Chedoke-McMaster stroke assessment," Stroke, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 58-63, 1993.

[23] A. B. Putti, G. P. Arnold, L. A. Cochrane, and R. J. Abboud, "Normal pressure values and repeatability of the Emed ST4 system," Gait and Posture, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 501-505, 2008.

[24] K. A. Sawner, J. M. LaVigne, and S. Brunnstrom, Brunnstroms Movement Therapy in Hemiplegia: A Neurophysiological Approach, Lippincott, Philadelphia, Pa, USA, 1992.

[25] J. Perry, Gait Analysis: Normal and Pathological Function, SLACK, Thorofare, Calif, USA, 1992.

[26] M. Rodgers, L. W. Forrester, C. Mizelle, and M. L. Harris-Love, "Effects of gait velocity on COP symmetry measures in individuals with stroke," in Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Biomechanics, Portland, Ore, USA, September 2004.

[27] C. Mizelle, M. Rodgers, and L. Forrester, "Bilateral foot center of pressure measures predict hemiparetic gait velocity," Gait & Posture, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 356-363, 2006.

[28] K. Sullivan, T. Klassen, and S. Mulroy, "Combined task-specific training and strengthening effects on locomotor recovery post-stroke: a case study," Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 130-141, 2006.

[29] C. M. Sackley and B. I. Baguley, "Visual feedback after stroke with the balance performance monitor: two single-case studies," Clinical Rehabilitation, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 189-195, 1993.

[30] R. A. Geiger, J. B. Allen, J. O'Keefe, and R. R. Hicks, "Balance and mobility following stroke: effects of physical therapy interventions with and without biofeedback/forceplate training," Physical Therapy, vol. 81, no. 4, pp. 995-1005, 2001.

[31] R. P. S. Van Peppen, G. Kwakkel, S. Wood-Dauphinee, H. J. M. Hendriks, P. J. Van der Wees, and J. Dekker, "The impact of physical therapy on functional outcomes after stroke: what's the evidence?" Clinical Rehabilitation, vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 833-862, 2004.

[32] I. J. Hubbard, M. W. Parsons, C. Neilson, and L. M. Carey, "Task-specific training: Evidence for and translation to clinical practice," Occupational Therapy International, vol. 16, no. 3-4, pp. 175-189, 2009.

Mohamed Elsayed Khallaf, (1) Ahmed Maher Gabr, (2) and Eman Elsayed Fayed (3)

(1) Department of Physical Therapy for Neuromuscular Disorders and Its Surgery, Faculty of Physical Therapy, Cairo University, 7Ahmed El-ZayatStreet, Dokki, Giza, Egypt

(2) Department of Physical Therapy for Growth and Development Disorders in Children and Its Surgery, Faculty of Physical Therapy, Cairo University, Egypt

(3) Department of Physical Therapy, College of Applied Medical Sciences, University of Hail, Saudi Arabia

Correspondence should be addressed to Mohamed Elsayed Khallaf;

Received 24 August 2014; Revised 14 October 2014; Accepted 15 October 2014; Published 24 November 2014

Academic Editor: Mamede de Carvalho

TABLE 1: Subject characteristics, values presented
as mean (SD) and percentages.

                         Group 1 n = 8           Group 2 n = 8

Age                   40.38 [+ or -] 2.67     41.25 [+ or -] 3.11
Sex (male/female)             6/2                     6/2
Weight (Kg)           83.13 [+ or -] 4.32     82.13 [+ or -] 3.27
Height (cm)          175.75 [+ or -] 11.93   171.88 [+ or -] 10.22
Shoe size             41.75 [+ or -] 2.12     41.38 [+ or -] 2.62
Paretic right side             5                       4
Duration of           9.88 [+ or -] 2.80      10.00 [+ or -] 2.39
  illness (m)
Hypertensive                 62.5%                    75%
Diabetic                      25%                    375%
Smokers                      62.5%                    50%
Obese                         25%                     25%
Level of activity             Low                     Low


Age                  0.213
Sex (male/female)    1.00
Weight (Kg)          0.513
Height (cm)          0.163
Shoe size            0.732
Paretic right side   0.351
Duration of          0.442
  illness (m)
Hypertensive          --
Diabetic              --
Smokers               --
Obese                 --
Level of activity     --

TABLE 2: Muscle tone assessment (percentage)
and recovery and functional level.

Groups      Modified Ashwarth's scale         Chedoke-McMaster
                                              Stroke Assessment

            Grade 1   Grade 1+   Foot stage   Leg stage     Activity

Group 1       25%       75%          4            5            6
  (n = 8)
Group 2      37.5%     62.5%         4            5            6
  (n = 8)

TABLE 3: Mean scores of time of contact
(percentage average rollover period) for
the study and control groups and the
associated P values for test of differences.

Foot area      Measures         Group 1               Group 2

                           Mean [+ or -] SD      Mean [+ or -] SD

Hindfoot         1st      53.62 [+ or -] 3.49   50.38 [+ or -] 1.16
                 2nd      67.03 [+ or -] 1.49   51.84 [+ or -] 3.63
                 3rd      62.69 [+ or -] 1.98   49.09 [+ or -] 3.14
First            1st      92.29 [+ or -] 1.09   90.08 [+ or -] 2.72
  metatarsal     2nd      82.84 [+ or -] 1.37   88.19 [+ or -] 4.77
  head           3rd      86.38 [+ or -] 1.45   89.89 [+ or -] 3.32
Second           1st      94.41 [+ or -] 2.72   90.88 [+ or -] 3.86
  metatarsal     2nd      85.36 [+ or -] 1.15   89.92 [+ or -] 4.75
  head           3rd      84.63 [+ or -] 1.09   88.88 [+ or -] 2.49
Third            1st      94.46 [+ or -] 2.34   91.85 [+ or -] 5.30
  metatarsal     2nd      91.61 [+ or -] 2.83   86.48 [+ or -] 5.21
  head           3rd      91.09 [+ or -] 1.06   85.84 [+ or -] 3.90
Forth            1st      92.48 [+ or -] 1.23   90.14 [+ or -] 5.46
  metatarsal     2nd      81.20 [+ or -] 1.29   90.95 [+ or -] 4.62
  head           3rd      84.83 [+ or -] 2.82   89.74 [+ or -] 4.75
Fifth            1st      86.09 [+ or -] 2.82   85.95 [+ or -] 2.07
  metatarsal     2nd      77.32 [+ or -] 1.47   84.57 [+ or -] 3.90
  head           3rd      77.66 [+ or -] 1.45   85.34 [+ or -] 3.23

Foot area      Between groups

                 T        P

Hindfoot       2.15     0.069
               11.02   0.001 *
               12.25   0.001 *
First          2.14     0.096
  metatarsal   2.82    0.026 *
  head         2.92    0.022 *
Second         1.87     0.103
  metatarsal   2.58    0.037 *
  head         3.66    0.008 *
Third          1.24     0.254
  metatarsal   2.72    0.030 *
  head         4.02    0.005 *
Forth          1.21    0.263 *
  metatarsal   5.32    0.001 *
  head         2.62    0.035 *
Fifth          0.11     0.913
  metatarsal   5.61    0.001 *
  head         5.86    0.001 *

Foot area      Within subject effect

               Group 1

                 F        P

               77.31   0.001 *

  metatarsal   95.68   0.001 *
  metatarsal   79.13   0.001 *
  metatarsal   5.61    0.016 *
  metatarsal   10.99   0.001 *
  metatarsal   38.57   0.001 *

Foot area      Within subject effect

               Group 2

                 F       P

               2.109   0.163

  metatarsal   1.950   0.194
  metatarsal   0.628   0.523
  metatarsal   3.496   0.060
  metatarsal   0.300   0.731
  metatarsal   0.393   0.679

* P is significant at P < 0.05.

TABLE 4: Mean scores of maximum force (N/[cm.sup.2]) for
the study and control groups and the associated P values
for test of differences.

Foot area    Measures         Group 1                 Group 2

                          Mean [+ or -] SD       Mean [+ or -] SD

               1st      124.13 [+ or -] 6.47   122.14 [+ or -] 5.05
Hindfoot       2nd      323.47 [+ or -] 24.7   125.22 [+ or -] 13.52
               3rd      313.72 [+ or -] 23.3   122.55 [+ or -] 14.16
               1st      126.37 [+ or -] 9.2    128.49 [+ or -] 5.17
First          2nd      95.32 [+ or -] 3.45    132.32 [+ or -] 5.32
metatarsal     3rd      97.46 [+ or -] 4.03    129.96 [+ or -] 8.97
head           1st      173.7 [+ or -] 10.6    168.95 [+ or -] 7.13
Second         2nd      149.3 [+ or -] 5.31    162.02 [+ or -] 10.89
metatarsal     3rd      147.9 [+ or -] 10.3    157.36 [+ or -] 8.16
head           1st      194.65 [+ or -] 2.9    190.27 [+ or -] 4.66
Third          2nd      203.4 [+ or -] 3.79    195.07 [+ or -] 7.33
metatarsal     3rd      200.1 [+ or -] 1.99    193.74 [+ or -] 7.78
head           1st      144.2 [+ or -] 9.65    141.19 [+ or -] 7.02
Forth          2nd      120.77 [+ or -] 5.3    142.77 [+ or -] 8.84
metatarsal     3rd      122.61 [+ or -] 4.4    145.24 [+ or -] 10.52
head           1st       43.64 [+ or -] 4.9     47.52 [+ or -] 3.16
Fifth          2nd       61.77 [+ or -] 3.1     51.52 [+ or -] 5.19
metatarsal     3rd       56.67 [+ or -] 3.1     52.42 [+ or -] 6.79

Foot area    Measures    Between groups

                        T        P

               1st      0.759    0.472
Hindfoot       2nd      30.568   0.001 *
               3rd      32.942   0.001 *
               1st      0.851    0.423
First          2nd      23.074   0.001 *
metatarsal     3rd      10.370   0.001 *
head           1st      1.305    0.233
Second         2nd      2.906    0.023 *
metatarsal     3rd      2.864    0.024 *
head           1st      2.150    0.690
Third          2nd      3.572    0.009 *
metatarsal     3rd      2.404    0.047 *
head           1st      1.228    0.259
Forth          2nd      4.303    0.004 *
metatarsal     3rd      6.446    0.001 *
head           1st      0.694    0.510
Fifth          2nd      6.469    0.001 *
metatarsal     3rd      3.434    0.001 *

Foot area    Measures     Within group

                            Group 1

                        F       P

Hindfoot       2nd      87.82   0.001 *
First          2nd      64.21   0.001 *
metatarsal     3rd
head           1st
Second         2nd      18.94   0.001 *
metatarsal     3rd
head           1st
Third          2nd      26.81   0.001 *
metatarsal     3rd
head           1st
Forth          2nd      28.73   0.001 *
metatarsal     3rd
head           1st
Fifth          2nd      28.75   0.001 *
metatarsal     3rd

Foot area    Measures     Within group

                           Group 2

                        F       P

Hindfoot       2nd      0.263   0.772
First          2nd      0.532   0.599
metatarsal     3rd
head           1st
Second         2nd      2.180   0.438
metatarsal     3rd
head           1st
Third          2nd      1.337   0.294
metatarsal     3rd
head           1st
Forth          2nd      0.512   0.610
metatarsal     3rd
head           1st
Fifth          2nd      1.617   0.233
metatarsal     3rd

* P is significant at P < 0.05.
COPYRIGHT 2014 Hindawi Limited
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2014 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Research Article
Author:Khallaf, Mohamed Elsayed; Gabr, Ahmed Maher; Fayed, Eman Elsayed
Publication:Neurology Research International
Article Type:Clinical report
Date:Jan 1, 2014
Previous Article:Anatomical variations of the circulus arteriosus in cadaveric human brains.
Next Article:Differentiation of human breast-milk stem cells to neural stem cells and neurons.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters