Acute Effects of Assisted Cycling Therapy on Post-Stroke Motor Function: A Pilot Study.
Journal
Rehabilitation research and practice
ISSN: 2090-2867
Titre abrégé: Rehabil Res Pract
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101566862
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
03
09
2018
revised:
02
12
2018
accepted:
22
01
2019
entrez:
26
3
2019
pubmed:
25
3
2019
medline:
25
3
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Stroke is the most common cause of long-term disability in the United States (US). Assisted Cycling Therapy (ACT) at cadences of about 80 rpm has been associated with improvements in motor and clinical function in other clinical populations. The acute effects of ACT on motor function of persons with stroke have not been investigated. The primary purpose of this cross-over trial was to compare the effects of ACT, voluntary cycling (VC), and no cycling (NC) on upper (Box and Blocks Test) and lower extremity motor function (Lower Extremity Motor Coordination Test) in adults with chronic stroke (age: 60 ± 16 years; months since stroke: 96 ± 85). The secondary purpose was to examine average cycling cadence and ratings of perceived exertion as predictors of change in motor function following the exercise session. Twenty-two participants (female = 6, male = 16) completed one 20-min session each of ACT (mean cadence = 79.5 rpm, VC (mean cadence = 51.5 rpm), and NC on separate days in quasi-counterbalanced fashion). Main effects of intervention did not differ between ACT and VC. Within-intervention analyses revealed significant (p < 0.05) pre- to posttest changes in all outcome measures for ACT but only in the Lower Extremity Motor Coordination Test on the non-paretic side for VC. Trend analyses revealed a positive relationship between average ACT cadences and improvements in upper and lower extremity motor function (p < 0.05). A positive relationship between average VC cadences and lower extremity function was also revealed (p < 0.05). ACT and VC produced similar acute improvements in paretic and non-paretic lower extremity motor function whereas changes in upper extremity motor function were more limited. Faster cycling cadences seem to be associated with greater acute effects.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Stroke is the most common cause of long-term disability in the United States (US). Assisted Cycling Therapy (ACT) at cadences of about 80 rpm has been associated with improvements in motor and clinical function in other clinical populations. The acute effects of ACT on motor function of persons with stroke have not been investigated.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
The primary purpose of this cross-over trial was to compare the effects of ACT, voluntary cycling (VC), and no cycling (NC) on upper (Box and Blocks Test) and lower extremity motor function (Lower Extremity Motor Coordination Test) in adults with chronic stroke (age: 60 ± 16 years; months since stroke: 96 ± 85). The secondary purpose was to examine average cycling cadence and ratings of perceived exertion as predictors of change in motor function following the exercise session.
METHODS
METHODS
Twenty-two participants (female = 6, male = 16) completed one 20-min session each of ACT (mean cadence = 79.5 rpm, VC (mean cadence = 51.5 rpm), and NC on separate days in quasi-counterbalanced fashion).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Main effects of intervention did not differ between ACT and VC. Within-intervention analyses revealed significant (p < 0.05) pre- to posttest changes in all outcome measures for ACT but only in the Lower Extremity Motor Coordination Test on the non-paretic side for VC. Trend analyses revealed a positive relationship between average ACT cadences and improvements in upper and lower extremity motor function (p < 0.05). A positive relationship between average VC cadences and lower extremity function was also revealed (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
ACT and VC produced similar acute improvements in paretic and non-paretic lower extremity motor function whereas changes in upper extremity motor function were more limited. Faster cycling cadences seem to be associated with greater acute effects.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30906597
doi: 10.1155/2019/9028714
pmc: PMC6393872
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
9028714Références
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999 Sep;80(9):1013-6
pubmed: 10489001
Exp Brain Res. 2000 Nov;135(1):66-72
pubmed: 11104128
Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975;7(1):13-31
pubmed: 1135616
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002 Feb;83(2):193-200
pubmed: 11833022
Food Chem Toxicol. 2002 Sep;40(9):1243-55
pubmed: 12204388
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002 Oct;83(10):1374-7
pubmed: 12370871
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002 Dec;83(12):1697-702
pubmed: 12474172
Disabil Rehabil. 2002 Dec 15;24(18):961-9
pubmed: 12523950
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003 Dec;84(12):1780-5
pubmed: 14669183
Stroke. 2004 May;35(5):1230-40
pubmed: 15105522
J Am Geriatr Soc. 1992 Sep;40(9):922-35
pubmed: 1512391
Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2004;22(2):59-63
pubmed: 15272140
Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2004;22(3-5):317-36
pubmed: 15502259
N Engl J Med. 2005 Apr 21;352(16):1677-84
pubmed: 15843670
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 May;86(5):993-8
pubmed: 15895347
Clin Rehabil. 2005 Jun;19(4):404-11
pubmed: 15929509
Exp Brain Res. 2006 Apr;170(2):191-8
pubmed: 16328285
J Neurol Phys Ther. 2007 Mar;31(1):3-10
pubmed: 17419883
Top Stroke Rehabil. 2007 Mar-Apr;14(2):5-12
pubmed: 17517569
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008 Nov;89(11):2041-7
pubmed: 18996231
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009 Jul-Aug;23(6):600-8
pubmed: 19131578
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009 Jun;23(5):435-40
pubmed: 19261767
Br J Sports Med. 2011 Jan;45(1):46-8
pubmed: 20558528
Sports Med. 2010 Sep 1;40(9):765-801
pubmed: 20726622
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2010;47(6):563-71
pubmed: 20848369
BMC Med. 2010 Oct 13;8:60
pubmed: 20942915
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2011 May;35(6):1305-25
pubmed: 21315758
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011 Dec;111(12):3051-9
pubmed: 21455615
J Aging Phys Act. 2011 Apr;19(2):87-98
pubmed: 21558565
Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2011 Oct;39(4):177-86
pubmed: 21799425
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2011 Aug 24;8:47
pubmed: 21861930
Curr Opin Neurol. 2011 Dec;24(6):564-9
pubmed: 22002078
Hum Brain Mapp. 2013 Oct;34(10):2381-90
pubmed: 22461337
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012 Nov;93(11):2049-54
pubmed: 22659536
Brain Connect. 2013;3(2):190-8
pubmed: 23316956
Stroke. 2013 Jul;44(7):2064-89
pubmed: 23652265
Phys Ther. 2013 Dec;93(12):1707-16
pubmed: 23907078
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014 Aug;95(8):1490-7
pubmed: 24681388
Intellect Dev Disabil. 2014 Apr;52(2):124-35
pubmed: 24725111
Sports Med. 2014 Nov;44 Suppl 2:S175-84
pubmed: 25355191
Am J Occup Ther. 2015 Jul-Aug;69(4):6904210010p1-8
pubmed: 26114455
Res Dev Disabil. 2015 Oct-Nov;45-46:261-70
pubmed: 26280691
Front Neurol. 2015 Sep 02;6:194
pubmed: 26388836
Brain Connect. 2016 Feb;6(1):25-36
pubmed: 26414696
Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2016 Mar;24:56-62
pubmed: 26857399
J Intellect Disabil Res. 2016 Nov;60(11):1073-1085
pubmed: 27018305
PLoS One. 2016 Mar 28;11(3):e0152377
pubmed: 27018862
Am J Occup Ther. 1985 Jun;39(6):386-91
pubmed: 3160243