A Novel Body Weight-Supported Postural Perturbation Module for Gait and Balance Rehabilitation After Stroke: Preliminary Evaluation Study

Amanda Meyer, Henry Charles Hrdlicka, Erica Cutler, Jill Hellstrand, Emily Meise, Kaitlyn Rudolf, Pete Grevelding, Matthew Nankin, Amanda Meyer, Henry Charles Hrdlicka, Erica Cutler, Jill Hellstrand, Emily Meise, Kaitlyn Rudolf, Pete Grevelding, Matthew Nankin

Abstract

Background: Impaired balance regulation after stroke puts patients and therapists at risk of injury during rehabilitation. Body weight support systems (BWSSs) minimize this risk and allow patients to safely practice balance activities during therapy. Treadmill-based balance perturbation systems with BWSSs are known to improve balance in patients with age- or disease-related impairments. However, these stationary systems are unable to accommodate complex exercises that require more freedom of movement.

Objective: This study aims to evaluate the effect of a new balance perturbation module, which is directly integrated into a track-mounted BWSS, on balance impairments secondary to acute stroke.

Methods: This unblinded quasi-randomized controlled preliminary study was conducted in a rehabilitation-focused long-term acute care hospital. Participants were recruited from stroke rehabilitation inpatients with an admission Berg Balance Scale (BBS) score of 21 (out of 56) or greater. Over a 2-week period, consented participants completed 8 BWSS or BWSS with perturbation (BWSS-P) treatment sessions; study activities were incorporated into regular treatment to avoid disruption of their normal care. Although both groups conducted the same balance and gait activities during their treatment sessions, the BWSS-P sessions included lateral, anterior, and posterior balance perturbations. Pre- and postintervention BBS and Activities-Specific Balance Confidence (ABC) assessments were the primary outcome measures collected. Institutional BBS data from the year before installation of the track-mounted BWSS were retrospectively included as a post hoc historical standard of care comparison.

Results: The improved postintervention BBS and ABC assessment scores showed that all participants benefited from therapy (P<.001 for all pre- and postintervention comparisons). The average BBS percent change for the BWSS-P sample (n=14) was 66.95% (SD 43.78%) and that for the BWSS control sample (n=15) was 53.29% (SD 24.13%). These values were greater than those for the standard of care group (n=30; mean 28.31%, SD 17.25%; P=.02 and P=.005 respectively), with no difference among the BWSS groups (P=.67). ABC score changes were also similar among the preintervention and postintervention BWSS groups (P=.94 and P=.92, respectively).

Conclusions: Both BWSS groups demonstrated similar BBS and ABC score improvements, indicating that balance perturbations were not detrimental to postacute stroke rehabilitation and were safe to use. These data provide strong rationale and baseline data for conducting a larger follow-up study to further assess if this new perturbation system provides additional benefit to the rehabilitation of gait and balance impairments following stroke.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04919161; https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT04919161.

Keywords: Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale; balance perturbation; body weight support system; gait and ambulation; long-term acute care hospital, Berg Balance Scale; occupational therapy; physical therapy; postural balance; postural perturbation; stroke rehabilitation.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

©Amanda Meyer, Henry Charles Hrdlicka, Erica Cutler, Jill Hellstrand, Emily Meise, Kaitlyn Rudolf, Pete Grevelding, Matthew Nankin. Originally published in JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technology (https://rehab.jmir.org), 01.03.2022.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Participant flowchart. Of the 336 patients admitted for stroke rehabilitation that were assessed for study eligibility, 14.9% (50/336) were approached for study inclusion. Ultimately, 64% (32/50) of participants were enrolled in the study and assigned to either the body weight support system (BWSS) control or body weight support system with perturbation (BWSS-P) groups. During the study, 13% (4/32) of participants withdrew from the study early; 50% (2/4) because of early discharge, 25% (1/4) because of a flare-up of a pre-existing orthopedic condition, and 25% (1/4) because of an acute ankle sprain. Data from 9% (3/32) of participants was excluded from the final analysis.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Perturbation level progression. From the body weight support system, the highest perturbation level achieved was recorded for each participant, after each therapy session. Each participant who completed the study successfully increased their perturbation level between the first and last study-related therapy session (A). The perturbation level progression for the participants that completed the study could be broken down into three categories: low responders (B), moderate responders (C), and high responders (D). P values shown are for the comparison of session 1 and session 8 perturbation levels.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Berg Balance Scale assessment (BBS). Participant’s pre- and postintervention BBS assessment scores were used to track their improvement and response to the therapy. In addition to the body weight support system (BWSS) control and body weight support system with perturbation (BWSS-P) protocols, data from 2018, before the implementation of the BWSS, served as a historical standard of care (SOC) comparison group. Raw scores were first examined in aggregate (A). BBS percent change was calculated for each participant to show the magnitude of change between pre- and postintervention scores (B). In panel A, P values are shown only for comparisons that are significantly different or of clinical interest. Box plots represent the median and the 25% and 75% quartiles, respectively. The whiskers extend 1.5 and −1.5 of the IQR, respectively; circle symbols reflect data points beyond the 1.5 interquartile ranges; + symbols represent the mean; SOC: n=30, BWSS control: n=14 to 15, BWSS-P: n=13 to 14.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Activities-Specific Balance Confidence (ABC) scale assessment. The ABC scale was given to participants before and after the intervention to gauge their confidence in performing daily tasks. The box plot represents the median and the 25% and 75% quartiles, respectively. The whiskers extend 1.5 and −1.5 of the IQR, respectively; + symbols represent the mean; body weight support system (BWSS) control: n=14 to 15, body weight support system with perturbation (BWSS-P): n=13 to 14.

References

    1. Stroke facts. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [2022-02-08]. .
    1. Stroke information page. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. [2022-02-08]. .
    1. Benjamin EJ, Blaha MJ, Chiuve SE, Cushman M, Das SR, Deo R, de Ferranti SD, Floyd J, Fornage M, Gillespie C, Isasi CR, Jiménez MC, Jordan LC, Judd SE, Lackland D, Lichtman JH, Lisabeth L, Liu S, Longenecker CT, Mackey RH, Matsushita K, Mozaffarian D, Mussolino ME, Nasir K, Neumar RW, Palaniappan L, Pandey DK, Thiagarajan RR, Reeves MJ, Ritchey M, Rodriguez CJ, Roth GA, Rosamond WD, Sasson C, Towfighi A, Tsao CW, Turner MB, Virani SS, Voeks JH, Willey JZ, Wilkins JT, Wu JH, Alger HM, Wong SS, Muntner P, American Heart Association Statistics CommitteeStroke Statistics Subcommittee Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2017 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2017 Mar 07;135(10):e146–e603. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000485. CIR.0000000000000485
    1. Algurén B, Lundgren-Nilsson A, Sunnerhagen KS. Functioning of stroke survivors--A validation of the ICF core set for stroke in Sweden. Disabil Rehabil. 2010;32(7):551–9. doi: 10.3109/09638280903186335.
    1. Chen N, Xiao X, Hu H, Chen Y, Song R, Li L. Identify the alteration of balance control and risk of falling in stroke survivors during obstacle crossing based on kinematic analysis. Front Neurol. 2019;10:813. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2019.00813. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2019.00813.
    1. Forster A, Young J. Incidence and consequences of falls due to stroke: a systematic inquiry. BMJ. 1995 Jul 08;311(6997):83–6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.6997.83.
    1. Legters K. Fear of falling. Physical Ther. 2002 Mar 1;82(3):264–72. doi: 10.1093/ptj/82.3.264.
    1. Landers M, Oscar S, Sasaoka J, Vaughn K. Balance confidence and fear of falling avoidance behavior are most predictive of falling in older adults: prospective analysis. Phys Ther. 2016 Apr;96(4):433–42. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20150184.ptj.20150184
    1. Hidler J, Hamm LF, Lichy A, Groah SL. Automating activity-based interventions: the role of robotics. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2008;45(2):337–44. doi: 10.1682/jrrd.2007.01.0020.
    1. Hidler J, Lum PS. The road ahead for rehabilitation robotics. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(4):vii–x. doi: 10.1682/jrrd.2011.02.0014.
    1. Chien J, Hsu W. Effects of dynamic perturbation-based training on balance control of community-dwelling older adults. Sci Rep. 2018 Nov 22;8(1):17231. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-35644-5. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-35644-5.10.1038/s41598-018-35644-5
    1. Shimada H, Obuchi S, Furuna T, Suzuki T. New intervention program for preventing falls among frail elderly people: the effects of perturbed walking exercise using a bilateral separated treadmill. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2004 Jul;83(7):493–9. doi: 10.1097/01.phm.0000130025.54168.91.00002060-200407000-00001
    1. Esmaeili V, Juneau A, Dyer J, Lamontagne A, Kairy D, Bouyer L, Duclos C. Intense and unpredictable perturbations during gait training improve dynamic balance abilities in chronic hemiparetic individuals: a randomized controlled pilot trial. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2020 Jun 17;17(1):79. doi: 10.1186/s12984-020-00707-0. 10.1186/s12984-020-00707-0
    1. Steib S, Klamroth S, Gaßner H, Pasluosta C, Eskofier B, Winkler J, Klucken J, Pfeifer K. Perturbation during treadmill training improves dynamic balance and gait in Parkinson's disease: a single-blind randomized controlled pilot trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017 Aug;31(8):758–68. doi: 10.1177/1545968317721976.
    1. Schinkel-Ivy A, Huntley AH, Aqui A, Mansfield A. Does perturbation-based balance training improve control of reactive stepping in individuals with chronic stroke? J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2019 Apr;28(4):935–43. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2018.12.011.S1052-3057(18)30710-9
    1. Mansfield A, Aqui A, Danells CJ, Knorr S, Centen A, DePaul VG, Schinkel-Ivy A, Brooks D, Inness EL, Mochizuki G. Does perturbation-based balance training prevent falls among individuals with chronic stroke? A randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2018 Aug 17;8(8):e021510. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021510. bmjopen-2018-021510
    1. Shumway-Cook A, Woollacott M. Motor Control, 5 edition. Alphen aan den Rijn, Netherlands: Wolters Kluwer; 1995. Chapter 9: Abnormal postural control; pp. 185–206.
    1. Final rule (42 CFR Part 11) information. ClinicalTrials. [2022-02-08].
    1. Unblinded quasi-randomized pilot study exploring the benefits of the ZeroG TRiP system to improve patient balance following an acute stroke. ClinicalTrials. [2022-02-14]. .
    1. Schulz K, Altman D, Moher D, CONSORT Group CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010 Mar 23;340:c332. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c332.
    1. Berg K. Measuring balance in the elderly: preliminary development of an instrument. Physiother Canada. 1989 Nov;41(6):304–11. doi: 10.3138/ptc.41.6.304.
    1. Berg balance scale. Physiopedia. [2022-02-08]. .
    1. Activities-specific balance confidence scale. Shirley Ryan AbilityLab. [2022-02-08]. .
    1. Berg balance scale. Shirley Ryan AbilityLab. [2022-02-08]. .
    1. Bland M, Siles A, Anderl L, Eikenberry M, McCarthy A, Olivier G, Rice T, Romney W, Zelenik H. Core set of outcome measures for adults with neurologic conditions. Academy of Neurologic Physical Therapy. [2022-02-08]. .
    1. Functional Independence Measure (FIM) Physiopedia. [2022-02-08].
    1. Hidler J, Brennan D, Black I, Nichols D, Brady K, Nef T. ZeroG: overground gait and balance training system. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(4):287–98. doi: 10.1682/jrrd.2010.05.0098.
    1. Anggelis E, Powell ES, Westgate PM, Glueck AC, Sawaki L. Impact of motor therapy with dynamic body-weight support on Functional Independence Measures in traumatic brain injury: An exploratory study. NeuroRehabilitation. 2019 Dec 18;45(4):519–24. doi: 10.3233/NRE-192898. NRE192898
    1. TRiP in the ZeroG Gait and balance system. Aretech LLC. [2022-02-08]. .
    1. Hutchinson LA, De Asha AR, Rainbow MJ, Dickinson AW, Deluzio KJ. A comparison of centre of pressure behaviour and ground reaction force magnitudes when individuals walk overground and on an instrumented treadmill. Gait Posture. 2021 Jan;83:174–6. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2020.10.025.S0966-6362(20)30605-6
    1. Abbasi A, Yazdanbakhsh F, Tazji MK, Aghaie Ataabadi P, Svoboda Z, Nazarpour K, Vieira MF. A comparison of coordination and its variability in lower extremity segments during treadmill and overground running at different speeds. Gait Posture. 2020 Jun;79:139–44. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2020.04.022.S0966-6362(20)30142-9
    1. Functional gait assessment. Shirley Ryan AbilityLab. [2022-02-08]. .
    1. Dynamic gait index. Shirley Ryan AbilityLab. [2022-02-08]. .

Source: PubMed

3
订阅