34
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Treadmill training and body weight support for walking after stroke

      systematic-review

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Treadmill training, with or without body weight support using a harness, is used in rehabilitation and might help to improve walking after stroke. This is an update of the Cochrane review first published in 2003 and updated in 2005 and 2014.

          Objectives

          To determine if treadmill training and body weight support, individually or in combination, improve walking ability, quality of life, activities of daily living, dependency or death, and institutionalisation or death, compared with other physiotherapy gait‐training interventions after stroke. The secondary objective was to determine the safety and acceptability of this method of gait training.

          Search methods

          We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 14 February 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Database of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (the Cochrane Library 2017, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1966 to 14 February 2017), Embase (1980 to 14 February 2017), CINAHL (1982 to 14 February 2017), AMED (1985 to 14 February 2017) and SPORTDiscus (1949 to 14 February 2017). We also handsearched relevant conference proceedings and ongoing trials and research registers, screened reference lists, and contacted trialists to identify further trials.

          Selection criteria

          Randomised or quasi‐randomised controlled and cross‐over trials of treadmill training and body weight support, individually or in combination, for the treatment of walking after stroke.

          Data collection and analysis

          Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and methodological quality. The primary outcomes investigated were walking speed, endurance, and dependency.

          Main results

          We included 56 trials with 3105 participants in this updated review. The average age of the participants was 60 years, and the studies were carried out in both inpatient and outpatient settings. All participants had at least some walking difficulties and many could not walk without assistance. Overall, the use of treadmill training did not increase the chances of walking independently compared with other physiotherapy interventions (risk difference (RD) ‐0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) ‐0.02 to 0.02; 18 trials, 1210 participants; P = 0.94; I² = 0%; low‐quality evidence). Overall, the use of treadmill training in walking rehabilitation for people after stroke increased the walking velocity and walking endurance significantly. The pooled mean difference (MD) (random‐effects model) for walking velocity was 0.06 m/s (95% CI 0.03 to 0.09; 47 trials, 2323 participants; P < 0.0001; I² = 44%; moderate‐quality evidence) and the pooled MD for walking endurance was 14.19 metres (95% CI 2.92 to 25.46; 28 trials, 1680 participants; P = 0.01; I² = 27%; moderate‐quality evidence). Overall, the use of treadmill training with body weight support in walking rehabilitation for people after stroke did not increase the walking velocity and walking endurance at the end of scheduled follow‐up. The pooled MD (random‐effects model) for walking velocity was 0.03 m/s (95% CI ‐0.05 to 0.10; 12 trials, 954 participants; P = 0.50; I² = 55%; low‐quality evidence) and the pooled MD for walking endurance was 21.64 metres (95% CI ‐4.70 to 47.98; 10 trials, 882 participants; P = 0.11; I² = 47%; low‐quality evidence). In 38 studies with a total of 1571 participants who were independent in walking at study onset, the use of treadmill training increased the walking velocity significantly. The pooled MD (random‐effects model) for walking velocity was 0.08 m/s (95% CI 0.05 to 0.12; P < 0.00001; I 2 = 49%). There were insufficient data to comment on any effects on quality of life or activities of daily living. Adverse events and dropouts did not occur more frequently in people receiving treadmill training and these were not judged to be clinically serious events.

          Authors' conclusions

          Overall, people after stroke who receive treadmill training, with or without body weight support, are not more likely to improve their ability to walk independently compared with people after stroke not receiving treadmill training, but walking speed and walking endurance may improve slightly in the short term. Specifically, people with stroke who are able to walk (but not people who are dependent in walking at start of treatment) appear to benefit most from this type of intervention with regard to walking speed and walking endurance. This review did not find, however, that improvements in walking speed and endurance may have persisting beneficial effects. Further research should specifically investigate the effects of different frequencies, durations, or intensities (in terms of speed increments and inclination) of treadmill training, as well as the use of handrails, in ambulatory participants, but not in dependent walkers.

          Treadmill training and body weight support for walking after stroke

          Review question: We wanted to assess whether walking practice on a treadmill with the body being supported by a harness as the only form of training versus in combination with other kinds of training, could improve walking when compared with other training methods for walking or no treatment. This is an update of the Cochrane review first published in 2003 and updated in 2005 and 2014.

          Background: About 60% of people who have had a stroke have difficulties with walking, and improving walking is one of the main goals of rehabilitation. Treadmill training, with or without body weight support, uses specialist equipment to assist walking practice.

          Study characteristics: We identified 56 relevant trials, involving 3105 participants, up to March 2017. Twenty‐six studies (1410 participants) compared treadmill training with body weight support to another physiotherapy treatment; 20 studies (889 participants) compared treadmill training without body weight support to other physiotherapy treatment, no treatment, or sham treatment; two studies (100 participants) compared treadmill training with body weight support to treadmill training without body weight support; and four studies (147 participants) did not state whether they used body weight support or not. The average age of the participants was 60 years, and the studies were carried out in both inpatient and outpatient settings.

          Key results: The results of this review were partly inconclusive. People after stroke who receive treadmill training with or without body weight support are not more likely to improve their ability to walk independently. The quality of this evidence was low. However, treadmill training with or without body weight support may improve walking speed and walking capacity compared with people not receiving treadmill training. The quality of this evidence was moderate. More specifically, people after stroke who are able to walk at the start of therapy appear to benefit most from this type of intervention, but people who are not able to walk independently at therapy onset do not benefit. This review found that improvements in walking speed and endurance in people who can walk have no lasting positive effect. Unwanted events such as falls and dropouts were not more common in people receiving treadmill training.

          Further analysis showed that treadmill training in the first three months after stroke produces only modest improvements in walking speed and endurance. For people treated at a later stage (more than six months after their stroke) the effects were smaller. More frequent treadmill training (for example, five times per week) appears to produce greater effects on walking speed and endurance; however, this was not conclusive. Brief periods of treadmill training (duration of four weeks) provided a modest improvement in walking speed but not enough to be clinically important.

          Effects of the age of participants or the type of stroke were not investigated in this review.

          In practice, it appears that people who can walk after stroke, but not those who cannot, may profit from treadmill training (with and without body weight support) to improve their walking abilities. Further research should specifically investigate the effects of different frequencies, durations or intensities (in terms of speed increments and inclination) of treadmill training, as well as the use of handrails. Future trials should include people who can already walk, but not dependent walkers who are unable to walk unaided. Future research should analyse age groups, gender, and type of stroke to see who might benefit most from this treatment.

          Quality of the evidence The quality of evidence for treadmill training for walking after stroke was low to moderate. It was moderate for walking speed and walking endurance at the end of treatment and low for improving the ability to walk independently.

          Related collections

          Most cited references133

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Intensity of leg and arm training after primary middle-cerebral-artery stroke: a randomised trial.

          We investigated the effects of different intensities of arm and leg rehabilitation training on the functional recovery of activities of daily living (ADL), walking ability, and dexterity of the paretic arm, in a single-blind randomised controlled trial. Within 14 days after stroke onset, 101 severely disabled patients with a primary middle-cerebral-artery stroke were randomly assigned to: a rehabilitation programme with emphasis on arm training; a rehabilitation programme with emphasis on leg training; or a control programme in which the arm and leg were immobilised with an inflatable pressure splint. Each treatment regimen was applied for 30 min, 5 days a week during the first 20 weeks after stroke. In addition, all patients underwent a basic rehabilitation programme. The main outcome measures were ability in ADL (Barthel index), walking ability (functional ambulation categories), and dexterity of the paretic arm (Action Research arm test) at 6, 12, 20, and 26 weeks. Analyses were by intention to treat. At week 20, the leg-training group (n=31) had higher scores than the control group (n=37) for ADL ability (median 19 [IQR 16-20] vs 16 [10-19], p<0.05), walking ability (4 [3-5] vs 3 [1-4], p<0.05), and dexterity (2 [0-56] vs 0 [0-2], p<0.01). The arm-training group (n=33) differed significantly from the control group only in dexterity (9 [0-39] vs 0 [0-2], p<0.01). There were no significant differences in these endpoints at 20 weeks between the arm-training and leg-training groups. Greater intensity of leg rehabilitation improves functional recovery and health-related functional status, whereas greater intensity of arm rehabilitation results in small improvements in dexterity, providing further evidence that exercise therapy primarily induces treatment effects on the abilities at which training is specifically aimed.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Multicenter randomized clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of the Lokomat in subacute stroke.

            To compare the efficacy of robotic-assisted gait training with the Lokomat to conventional gait training in individuals with subacute stroke. A total of 63 participants<6 months poststroke with an initial walking speed between 0.1 to 0.6 m/s completed the multicenter, randomized clinical trial. All participants received twenty-four 1-hour sessions of either Lokomat or conventional gait training. Outcome measures were evaluated prior to training, after 12 and 24 sessions, and at a 3-month follow-up exam. Self-selected overground walking speed and distance walked in 6 minutes were the primary outcome measures, whereas secondary outcome measures included balance, mobility and function, cadence and symmetry, level of disability, and quality of life measures. Participants who received conventional gait training experienced significantly greater gains in walking speed (P=.002) and distance (P=.03) than those trained on the Lokomat. These differences were maintained at the 3-month follow-up evaluation. Secondary measures were not different between the 2 groups, although a 2-fold greater improvement in cadence was observed in the conventional versus Lokomat group. For subacute stroke participants with moderate to severe gait impairments, the diversity of conventional gait training interventions appears to be more effective than robotic-assisted gait training for facilitating returns in walking ability.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Enhanced gait-related improvements after therapist- versus robotic-assisted locomotor training in subjects with chronic stroke: a randomized controlled study.

              Locomotor training (LT) using a treadmill can improve walking ability over conventional rehabilitation in individuals with hemiparesis, although the personnel requirements often necessary to provide LT may limit its application. Robotic devices that provide consistent symmetrical assistance have been developed to facilitate LT, although their effectiveness in improving locomotor ability has not been well established. Forty-eight ambulatory chronic stroke survivors stratified by severity of locomotor deficits completed a randomized controlled study on the effects of robotic- versus therapist-assisted LT. Both groups received 12 LT sessions for 30 minutes at similar speeds, with guided symmetrical locomotor assistance using a robotic orthosis versus manual facilitation from a single therapist using an assist-as-needed paradigm. Outcome measures included gait speed and symmetry, and clinical measures of activity and participation. Greater improvements in speed and single limb stance time on the impaired leg were observed in subjects who received therapist-assisted LT, with larger speed improvements in those with less severe gait deficits. Perceived rating of the effects of physical limitations on quality of life improved only in subjects with severe gait deficits who received therapist-assisted LT. Therapist-assisted LT facilitates greater improvements in walking ability in ambulatory stroke survivors as compared to a similar dosage of robotic-assisted LT.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                jan.mehrholz@tu-dresden.de , jan.mehrholz@srh.de
                Journal
                Cochrane Database Syst Rev
                Cochrane Database Syst Rev
                14651858
                10.1002/14651858
                The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
                John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (Chichester, UK )
                1469-493X
                17 August 2017
                August 2017
                : 2017
                : 8
                : CD002840
                Affiliations
                Technical University Dresden deptDepartment of Public Health, Dresden Medical School Fetscherstr. 74 Dresden Germany 01307
                Klinik Bavaria Kreischa deptWissenschaftliches Institut Kreischa Germany 01731
                Dresden Medical School, Technical University Dresden deptDepartment of Public Health Fetscherstr. 74 Dresden Germany 01307
                Author notes

                Editorial Group: Cochrane Stroke Group.

                Article
                PMC6483714 PMC6483714 6483714 CD002840 CD002840.pub4
                10.1002/14651858.CD002840.pub4
                6483714
                28815562
                9ed07a70-a909-417a-aff2-7bcc87676b65
                Copyright © 2017 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
                History
                : 23 January 2014
                Categories
                Medicine General & Introductory Medical Sciences

                Exercise Therapy/instrumentation,Exercise Therapy,Body Weight,Stroke Rehabilitation/methods,Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic,Orthotic Devices,Stroke Rehabilitation,Humans,Middle Aged,Walking Speed,Exercise Therapy/methods,Patient Dropouts,Patient Dropouts/statistics & numerical data,Walking,Weight‐Bearing

                Comments

                Comment on this article