Pilot study of Lokomat versus manual-assisted treadmill training for locomotor recovery post-stroke

Kelly P. Westlake, Carolynn Patten

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

180 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background. While manually-assisted body-weight supported treadmill training (BWSTT) has revealed improved locomotor function in persons with post-stroke hemiparesis, outcomes are inconsistent and it is very labor intensive. Thus an alternate treatment approach is desirable. Objectives of this pilot study were to: 1) compare the efficacy of body-weight supported treadmill training (BWSTT) combined with the Lokomat robotic gait orthosis versus manually-assisted BWSTT for locomotor training post-stroke, and 2) assess effects of fast versus slow treadmill training speed. Methods. Sixteen volunteers with chronic hemiparetic gait (0.62 0.30 m/s) post-stroke were randomly allocated to Lokomat (n = 8) or manual-BWSTT (n = 8) 3×/wk for 4 weeks. Groups were also stratified by fast (mean 0.92 0.15 m/s) or slow (0.58 0.12 m/s) training speeds. The primary outcomes were self-selected overground walking speed and paretic step length ratio. Secondary outcomes included: fast overground walking speed, 6-minute walk test, and a battery of clinical measures. Results. No significant differences in primary outcomes were revealed between Lokomat and manual groups as a result of training. However, within the Lokomat group, self-selected walk speed, paretic step length ratio, and four of the six secondary measures improved (p = 0.040.05, effect sizes = 0.190.60). Within the manual group, only balance scores improved (p = 0.02, effect size = 0.57). Group differences between fast and slow training groups were not revealed (p 0.28). Conclusion. Results suggest that Lokomat training may have advantages over manual-BWSTT following a modest intervention dose in chronic hemiparetic persons and further, that our training speeds produce similar gait improvements. Suggestions for a larger randomized controlled trial with optimal study parameters are provided.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number18
JournalJournal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
Volume6
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 10 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Stroke
Body Weight
Gait
Orthotic Devices
Robotics
Paresis
Volunteers
Randomized Controlled Trials
Walking Speed
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Rehabilitation
  • Health Informatics

Cite this

Pilot study of Lokomat versus manual-assisted treadmill training for locomotor recovery post-stroke. / Westlake, Kelly P.; Patten, Carolynn.

In: Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, Vol. 6, No. 1, 18, 10.08.2009.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{ecd17e425a1d44c1a15af449d2db6131,
title = "Pilot study of Lokomat versus manual-assisted treadmill training for locomotor recovery post-stroke",
abstract = "Background. While manually-assisted body-weight supported treadmill training (BWSTT) has revealed improved locomotor function in persons with post-stroke hemiparesis, outcomes are inconsistent and it is very labor intensive. Thus an alternate treatment approach is desirable. Objectives of this pilot study were to: 1) compare the efficacy of body-weight supported treadmill training (BWSTT) combined with the Lokomat robotic gait orthosis versus manually-assisted BWSTT for locomotor training post-stroke, and 2) assess effects of fast versus slow treadmill training speed. Methods. Sixteen volunteers with chronic hemiparetic gait (0.62 0.30 m/s) post-stroke were randomly allocated to Lokomat (n = 8) or manual-BWSTT (n = 8) 3×/wk for 4 weeks. Groups were also stratified by fast (mean 0.92 0.15 m/s) or slow (0.58 0.12 m/s) training speeds. The primary outcomes were self-selected overground walking speed and paretic step length ratio. Secondary outcomes included: fast overground walking speed, 6-minute walk test, and a battery of clinical measures. Results. No significant differences in primary outcomes were revealed between Lokomat and manual groups as a result of training. However, within the Lokomat group, self-selected walk speed, paretic step length ratio, and four of the six secondary measures improved (p = 0.040.05, effect sizes = 0.190.60). Within the manual group, only balance scores improved (p = 0.02, effect size = 0.57). Group differences between fast and slow training groups were not revealed (p 0.28). Conclusion. Results suggest that Lokomat training may have advantages over manual-BWSTT following a modest intervention dose in chronic hemiparetic persons and further, that our training speeds produce similar gait improvements. Suggestions for a larger randomized controlled trial with optimal study parameters are provided.",
author = "Westlake, {Kelly P.} and Carolynn Patten",
year = "2009",
month = "8",
day = "10",
doi = "10.1186/1743-0003-6-18",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "6",
journal = "Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation",
issn = "1743-0003",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Pilot study of Lokomat versus manual-assisted treadmill training for locomotor recovery post-stroke

AU - Westlake, Kelly P.

AU - Patten, Carolynn

PY - 2009/8/10

Y1 - 2009/8/10

N2 - Background. While manually-assisted body-weight supported treadmill training (BWSTT) has revealed improved locomotor function in persons with post-stroke hemiparesis, outcomes are inconsistent and it is very labor intensive. Thus an alternate treatment approach is desirable. Objectives of this pilot study were to: 1) compare the efficacy of body-weight supported treadmill training (BWSTT) combined with the Lokomat robotic gait orthosis versus manually-assisted BWSTT for locomotor training post-stroke, and 2) assess effects of fast versus slow treadmill training speed. Methods. Sixteen volunteers with chronic hemiparetic gait (0.62 0.30 m/s) post-stroke were randomly allocated to Lokomat (n = 8) or manual-BWSTT (n = 8) 3×/wk for 4 weeks. Groups were also stratified by fast (mean 0.92 0.15 m/s) or slow (0.58 0.12 m/s) training speeds. The primary outcomes were self-selected overground walking speed and paretic step length ratio. Secondary outcomes included: fast overground walking speed, 6-minute walk test, and a battery of clinical measures. Results. No significant differences in primary outcomes were revealed between Lokomat and manual groups as a result of training. However, within the Lokomat group, self-selected walk speed, paretic step length ratio, and four of the six secondary measures improved (p = 0.040.05, effect sizes = 0.190.60). Within the manual group, only balance scores improved (p = 0.02, effect size = 0.57). Group differences between fast and slow training groups were not revealed (p 0.28). Conclusion. Results suggest that Lokomat training may have advantages over manual-BWSTT following a modest intervention dose in chronic hemiparetic persons and further, that our training speeds produce similar gait improvements. Suggestions for a larger randomized controlled trial with optimal study parameters are provided.

AB - Background. While manually-assisted body-weight supported treadmill training (BWSTT) has revealed improved locomotor function in persons with post-stroke hemiparesis, outcomes are inconsistent and it is very labor intensive. Thus an alternate treatment approach is desirable. Objectives of this pilot study were to: 1) compare the efficacy of body-weight supported treadmill training (BWSTT) combined with the Lokomat robotic gait orthosis versus manually-assisted BWSTT for locomotor training post-stroke, and 2) assess effects of fast versus slow treadmill training speed. Methods. Sixteen volunteers with chronic hemiparetic gait (0.62 0.30 m/s) post-stroke were randomly allocated to Lokomat (n = 8) or manual-BWSTT (n = 8) 3×/wk for 4 weeks. Groups were also stratified by fast (mean 0.92 0.15 m/s) or slow (0.58 0.12 m/s) training speeds. The primary outcomes were self-selected overground walking speed and paretic step length ratio. Secondary outcomes included: fast overground walking speed, 6-minute walk test, and a battery of clinical measures. Results. No significant differences in primary outcomes were revealed between Lokomat and manual groups as a result of training. However, within the Lokomat group, self-selected walk speed, paretic step length ratio, and four of the six secondary measures improved (p = 0.040.05, effect sizes = 0.190.60). Within the manual group, only balance scores improved (p = 0.02, effect size = 0.57). Group differences between fast and slow training groups were not revealed (p 0.28). Conclusion. Results suggest that Lokomat training may have advantages over manual-BWSTT following a modest intervention dose in chronic hemiparetic persons and further, that our training speeds produce similar gait improvements. Suggestions for a larger randomized controlled trial with optimal study parameters are provided.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=67650765413&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=67650765413&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/1743-0003-6-18

DO - 10.1186/1743-0003-6-18

M3 - Article

C2 - 19523207

AN - SCOPUS:67650765413

VL - 6

JO - Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation

JF - Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation

SN - 1743-0003

IS - 1

M1 - 18

ER -