Visual cue training to improve walking and turning after stroke: a study protocol for a multi-centre, single blind randomised pilot trial

Trials

Paulette van Vliet¹  Wing Alan⁵  Catherine Sackley²  Sue Jowett⁵  Diane Whitham³  Andrew Wimperis⁶  Trudy Pelton⁵  Kristen L Hollands⁴ 

[1] University of Newcastle, School of Health Sciences, Newcastle, Hunter Building Callaghan, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia;University of East Anglia, School of Allied Health Professions, Queens Building, Earlham Road, Norwich, Norfolk NR4 7TJ, UK;University of Nottingham, Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, Nottingham Health Science Partners, C-floor, South Block, Queen’s Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK;Research Fellow School of Health Sciences, University of Salford, Allerton Building, Salford M6 6PU, UK;Colleges of Life and Environmental Sciences & Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK;Birmingham Community Health Care NHS Trust, (BCHCT), Moseley Hall Hospital, Birmingham B13 8JL, UK

关键词: Vision;    Stroke;    Rehabilitation;    Gait;   

Others  :  1093144
DOI  :  10.1186/1745-6215-14-276

 received in 2013-02-06, accepted in 2013-08-23,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Visual information comprises one of the most salient sources of information used to control walking and the dependence on vision to maintain dynamic stability increases following a stroke. We hypothesize, therefore, that rehabilitation efforts incorporating visual cues may be effective in triggering recovery and adaptability of gait following stroke. This feasibility trial aims to estimate probable recruitment rate, effect size, treatment adherence and response to gait training with visual cues in contrast to conventional overground walking practice following stroke.

Methods/design

A 3-arm, parallel group, multi-centre, single blind, randomised control feasibility trial will compare overground visual cue training (O-VCT), treadmill visual cue training (T-VCT), and usual care (UC). Participants (n = 60) will be randomly assigned to one of three treatments by a central randomisation centre using computer generated tables to allocate treatment groups. The research assessor will remain blind to allocation. Treatment, delivered by physiotherapists, will be twice weekly for 8 weeks at participating outpatient hospital sites for the O-VCT or UC and in a University setting for T-VCT participants.

Individuals with gait impairment due to stroke, with restricted community ambulation (gait speed <0.8m/s), residual lower limb paresis and who are able to take part in repetitive walking practice involving visual cues (i.e., no severe visual impairments, able to walk with minimal assistance and no comorbid medical contraindications for walking practice) will be included.

The primary outcomes concerning participant enrolment, recruitment, retention, and health and social care resource use data will be recorded over a recruitment period of 18 months. Secondary outcome measures will be undertaken before randomisation (baseline), after the eight-week intervention (outcome), and at three months (follow-up). Outcome measures will include gait speed and step length symmetry; time and steps taken to complete a 180° turn; assessment of gait adaptability (success rate in target stepping); timed up and go; Fugl-Meyer lower limb motor assessment; Berg balance scale; falls efficacy scale; SF-12; and functional ambulation category.

Discussion

Participation and compliance measured by treatment logs, accrual rate, attrition, and response variation will determine sample sizes for an early phase randomised controlled trial and indicate whether a definitive late phase efficacy trial is justified.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01600391.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Hollands et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Hill K, Ellis P, Bernhardt J, Maggs P, Hull S: Balance and mobility outcomes for stroke patients: a comprehensive audit. Aust J Physiother 1997, 43(3):173-180.
• [2]Hyndman D, Ashburn A, Stack E: Fall events among people with stroke living in the community: circumstances of falls and characteristics of fallers. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002, 83(2):165-170.
• [3]Roerdink M, Lamoth CJ, Kwakkel G, van Wieringen PC, Beek PJ: Gait coordination after stroke: benefits of acoustically paced treadmill walking. Phys Ther 2007, 87(8):1009-1022.
• [4]Hollands KL, Pelton TA, Tyson SF, Hollands MA, van Vliet PM: Interventions for coordination of walking following stroke: systematic review. Gait Posture 2012, 35(3):349-359.
• [5]Langhorne P, Coupar F, Pollock A: Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol 2009, 8(8):741-754.
• [6]French B, Thomas L, Leathley M, Sutton C, McAdam J, Forster A, Langhorne P, Price C, Walker A, Watkins C: Does repetitive task training improve functional activity after stroke? A Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. J Rehabil Med 2010, 42(1):9-15.
• [7]Krakauer JW, Carmichael ST, Corbett D, Wittenberg GF: Getting neurorehabilitation right: what can be learned from animal models? Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2012, 26(8):923-931.
• [8]Wulf G: Attentional focus and motor learning: a review of 10 years of research. E-J Bewegung und Training 2007, 1:4-14.
• [9]Krasovsky T, Levin MF: Review: toward a better understanding of coordination in healthy and poststroke gait. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2010, 24(3):213-224.
• [10]Patterson SL, Rodgers MM, Macko RF, Forrester LW: Effect of treadmill exercise training on spatial and temporal gait parameters in subjects with chronic stroke: a preliminary report. J Rehabil Res Dev 2008, 45(2):221-228.
• [11]Harris-Love ML, Forrester LW, Macko RF, Silver KH, Smith GV: Hemiparetic gait parameters in overground versus treadmill walking. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2001, 15(2):105-112.
• [12]Pelton TA, Johannsen L, Huiya C, Wing AM: Hemiparetic stepping to the beat: asymmetric response to metronome phase shift during treadmill gait. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2010, 24(5):428-434.
• [13]Bank PJ, Roerdink M, Peper CE: Comparing the efficacy of metronome beeps and stepping stones to adjust gait: steps to follow! Exp Brain Res 2011, 209(2):159-169.
• [14]Patla AE, Vickers JN: Where and when do we look as we approach and step over an obstacle in the travel path? Neuroreport 1997, 8(17):3661-3665.
• [15]Bonan IV, Yelnik AP, Colle FM, Michaud C, Normand E, Panigot B, Roth P, Guichard JP, Vicaut E: Reliance on visual information after stroke. Part II: Effectiveness of a balance rehabilitation program with visual cue deprivation after stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004, 85(2):274-278.
• [16]Hollands KL, van Vliet P, Zietz D, Wing A, Wright C, Hollands MA: Stroke-related differences in axial body segment coordination during preplanned and reactive changes in walking direction. Exp Brain Res 2010, 202(3):591-604.
• [17]Smulders E, Schreven C, van Lankveld W, Duysens J, Weerdesteyn V: Obstacle avoidance in persons with rheumatoid arthritis walking on a treadmill. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2009, 27(5):779-785.
• [18]Den Otter AR, Geurts AC, de Haart M, Mulder T, Duysens J: Step characteristics during obstacle avoidance in hemiplegic stroke. Exp Brain Res 2005, 161(2):180-192.
• [19]Perry J, Garrett M, Gronley JK, Mulroy SJ: Classification of walking handicap in the stroke population. Stroke 1995, 26(6):982-989.
• [20]Schulz KF, Grimes DA: Allocation concealment in randomised trials: defending against deciphering. Lancet 2002, 359(9306):614-618.
• [21]Gladstone DJ, Danells CJ, Black SE: The fugl-meyer assessment of motor recovery after stroke: a critical review of its measurement properties. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2002, 16(3):232-240.
• [22]Wilson JT, Hareendran A, Hendry A, Potter J, Bone I, Muir KW: Reliability of the modified Rankin Scale across multiple raters: benefits of a structured interview. Stroke 2005, 36(4):777-781.
• [23]Holden MK, Gill KM, Magliozzi MR: Gait assessment for neurologically impaired patients. Standards for outcome assessment. Phys Ther 1986, 66(10):1530-1539.
• [24]Syder D: Sheffield Screening Test for Acquired Language Disorders. Windsor: NFER-NELSON; 1993.
• [25]Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR: Mini-mental state. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975, 12(3):189-198.
• [26]Bickerton WL, Samson D, Williamson J, Humphreys GW: Separating forms of neglect using the Apples Test: validation and functional prediction in chronic and acute stroke. Neuropsychology 2011, 25(5):567-580.
• [27]Hollands MA, Patla AE, Vickers JN: “Look where you’re going!”: gaze behaviour associated with maintaining and changing the direction of locomotion. Exp Brain Res 2002, 143(2):221-230.
• [28]Roerdink M, Coolen BH, Clairbois BH, Lamoth CJ, Beek PJ: Online gait event detection using a large force platform embedded in a treadmill. J Biomech 2008, 41(12):2628-2632.
• [29]Verlinden VJ, van der Geest JN, Hoogendam YY, Hofman A, Breteler MM, Ikram MA: Gait patterns in a community-dwelling population aged 50 years and older. Gait Posture 2013, 37(4):500-505.
• [30]Huang VS, Krakauer JW: Robotic neurorehabilitation: a computational motor learning perspective. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2009, 6:5.
• [31]Mehrholz J, Werner C, Kugler J, Pohl M: Electromechanical-assisted training for walking after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007, 4:CD006185.
• [32]Mehrholz J, Werner C, Kugler J, Pohl M: Electromechanical-assisted gait training with physiotherapy may improve walking after stroke. Stroke 2008, 39:1929-1930.
• [33]Moseley AM, Stark A, Cameron ID, Pollock A: Treadmill training and body weight support for walking after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005, 4:CD002840.
• [34]Moseley A: Treadmill training more effective than Bobath training in improving walking following stroke. Aust J Physiother 2005, 51(3):192.
• [35]Hollands MA, Marple-Horvat DE: Coordination of eye and leg movements during visually guided stepping. J Mot Behav 2001, 33(2):205-216.
• [36]Balasubramanian CK, Bowden MG, Neptune RR, Kautz SA: Relationship between step length asymmetry and walking performance in subjects with chronic hemiparesis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007, 88(1):43-49.
• [37]Thigpen MT, Light KE, Creel GL, Flynn SM: Turning difficulty characteristics of adults aged 65 years or older. Phys Ther 2000, 80(12):1174-1187.
• [38]Patla AE, Adkin A, Ballard T: Online steering: coordination and control of body center of mass, head and body reorientation. Exp Brain Res 1999, 129(4):629-634.
• [39]Magill RA: Motor Learning and Control: Concepts and Applications. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education; 2011.
• [40]Duncan PW, Sullivan KJ, Behrman AL, Azen SP, Wu SS, Nadeau SE, Dobkin BH, Rose DK, Tilson JK, LEAPS Investigative Team: Protocol for the Locomotor Experience Applied Post-stroke (LEAPS) trial: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Neurol 2007, 7:39.
• [41]Schmid A, Duncan PW, Studenski S, Lai SM, Richards L, Perera S, Wu SS: Improvements in speed-based gait classifications are meaningful. Stroke 2007, 38(7):2096-2100.
• [42]Dite W, Temple VA: A clinical test of stepping and change of direction to identify multiple falling older adults. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002, 83(11):1566-1571.
• [43]Huxham F, Gong J, Baker R, Morris M, Iansek R: Defining spatial parameters for non-linear walking. Gait Posture 2006, 23(2):159-163.
• [44]Ng SS, Hui-Chan CW: The timed up & go test: its reliability and association with lower-limb impairments and locomotor capacities in people with chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005, 86(8):1641-1647.
• [45]Hollands KL, Hollands MA, Zietz D, Wing AM, Wright C, van Vliet P: Kinematics of turning 180 degrees during the timed up and go in stroke survivors with and without falls history. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2010, 24(4):358-367.
• [46]Berg K, Wood-Dauphinee SL, Williams JI, Maki B: Measuring balance in the elderly – development of an instrument. Phys Ther 1988, 68(5):811.
• [47]Berg K, Wood-Dauphinee SL, Williams JI, Maki B: Measuring balance in the elderly – validation of an instrument. Can J Public Health 1992, 83(Suppl 2):S7-S11.
• [48]Stanko E, Goldie P, Nayler M: Development of a new mobility scale for people living in the community after stroke: content validity. Aust J Physiother 2001, 47(3):201-208.
• [49]Yardley L, Beyer N, Hauer K, Kempen G, Piot-Ziegler C, Todd C: Development and initial validation of the Falls Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I). Age Ageing 2005, 34(6):614-619.
• [50]Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NM, O'Cathain A, Thomas KJ, Usherwood T, Westlake L: Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ 1992, 305(6846):160-164.
• [51]Brazier JE, Roberts J: The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med Care 2004, 42(9):851-859.