Method: Nine patients participated with PWB harness on the treadmill, and nine patients with traditional exercise. In harness group, the gait training with 30% weight reduction was offered on treadmill, they were treated daily and gait training was done for 20 minutes. In no-harness group, traditional gait training was done by physical therapists. Variables were gait parameters assessed by VICON 370 Gait Analyzer, other function tested by Motricity Index and Functional Ambulatory Category.
Results: In linear parameter, the harness group had faster gait speed, longer stride length, and more decreased double support time compared to the no-harness group. In kinematic parameters, the maximal flexion of knee was significantly increased in harness group, but no significant differences was in hip and ankle motion. In kinetic parameters, hip flexion moment of normal side was increased in harness group at heel strike phase, knee flexion moment of normal side was decreased in harness group at heel strike phase.
Conclusion: The gait training with partial weight bearing harness was more effective in acute stroke patients than traditional therapy, and was influenced in gait pattern, functional ability.
Method: 16 hemiplegic patients who could walk without assistive devices were included in this study. We used insole foot-pressure system to measure weight bearing ratio of both feet during walking. We assessed walking speed and pressure ratio during straight or circular walking at their comfortable gait speed.
Results: Pressure ratio of affected foot showed negative correlation with walking time irrespective of walking direction. Pressure ratio of affected foot and walking time during circular walking to the affected side was significantly higher and slower respectively than that to the intact side.
Conclusion: Asymmetrical weight bearing of both feet during walking is highly correlated with walking ability in hemiplegic patients and pressure ratio of affected foot may be simple and useful determinant of walking ability. (J Korean Acad Rehab Med 2003; 27: 173-177)
Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare and analyze the differences between weight bearing through the plegic and nonplegic lower extremities in hemiplegic patients in various standing conditions.
Method: We used digital scales to measure weight bearing among 13 hemiplegic patients when they performed comfortable standing, maximal weight shifting to each lower extremity, step standing with each foot on a step, and maximal weight shifting to each lower extremity again.
Results: 1) Patients bore significantly more weight on their nonplegic lower extremity than on their plegic one during comfortable standing (p<0.05).
2) They bore significantly more weight on their nonplegic lower extremity than on their plegic lower extremity when maximal weight shifting was done (p<0.01).
3) They bore very significantly more weight on the lower extremity that was not on the step during step standing regardless of whether it was plegic or nonplegic (p<0.001).
4) When maximal weight shifting was done again, the weight bearing of plegic lower extremity was insignificantly decreased compared to that before step standing (p>0.05) and the weight bearing of nonplegic lower extremity was insignificantly increased (p>0.05).
Conclusion: Step standing was a very useful training method of facilitating the weight bearing in hemiplegic lower extremity.