Differences in mediolateral dynamic stability during gait initiation according to whether the non-paretic or paretic leg is used as the leading limb.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
14
09
2021
accepted:
11
04
2022
entrez:
27
4
2022
pubmed:
28
4
2022
medline:
30
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
We investigated mediolateral dynamic stability at first foot off and first initial contact during gait initiation according to whether the paretic or non-paretic leg was used as the leading limb. Thirty-eight individuals with stroke initiated gait with the paretic and non-paretic legs as the leading limb, and their movements were measured using a 3D motion analysis system. Margin of stability (i.e., the length between the extrapolated center of mass and lateral border of the stance foot) was used as an index of dynamic stability, with a large value indicating dynamic stability in the lateral direction. However, an excessively large margin of stability value (i.e., when the extrapolated center of mass is outside the medial border of the stance foot) indicates dynamic instability in the medial direction. Differences in the margin of stability between tasks were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The minimum margin of stability was observed just before first foot off. When the non-paretic leg was used as the leading limb, the margin of stability tended to be excessively large at first foot off compared with when the paretic leg was used (p < 0.001). In other words, the extrapolated center of mass was outside the medial border of the paretic stance foot. In conclusion, lateral stability was achieved when using the non-paretic leading limb because the extrapolated center of mass was located outside the medial border of the stance foot. However, medial dynamic stability was lower for the non-paretic leading limb compared with the paretic leading limb.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35476702
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267577
pii: PONE-D-21-29688
pmc: PMC9045617
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0267577Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2000 Apr;68(4):458-64
pubmed: 10727481
J Biomech. 2016 Feb 8;49(3):396-400
pubmed: 26795124
J Biomech. 2002 Apr;35(4):543-8
pubmed: 11934426
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995 Jul;76(7):627-34
pubmed: 7605181
J Neurophysiol. 1994 Nov;72(5):2070-89
pubmed: 7884445
Front Neurol. 2019 Apr 17;10:352
pubmed: 31057474
J Appl Biomech. 2015 Oct;31(5):349-56
pubmed: 26033346
Clin Neurophysiol. 2001 Nov;112(11):2146-53
pubmed: 11682354
J Rehabil Med. 2006 Sep;38(5):287-94
pubmed: 16931458
Neurosci Lett. 2006 Oct 2;406(1-2):128-32
pubmed: 16901637
Front Hum Neurosci. 2017 Mar 27;11:127
pubmed: 28396629
Hum Mov Sci. 2018 Feb;57:366-373
pubmed: 28987772
Diagnostics (Basel). 2020 Sep 03;10(9):
pubmed: 32899201
J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2003 Dec;13(6):569-73
pubmed: 14573371
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2015 Aug;30(7):689-95
pubmed: 26052068
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Mar 08;18(5):
pubmed: 33800119
PLoS One. 2017 Aug 15;12(8):e0183020
pubmed: 28809939
Gait Posture. 2006 Dec;24(4):424-8
pubmed: 16488149
J Biomech. 2005 Jan;38(1):1-8
pubmed: 15519333
Gait Posture. 2007 Jul;26(2):301-8
pubmed: 17081756
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1991 Aug;70(4):206-12
pubmed: 1878180
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997 Jul;78(7):719-24
pubmed: 9228874
J Jpn Phys Ther Assoc. 2015;18(1):7-14
pubmed: 26733761
PLoS One. 2009 Dec 07;4(12):e8193
pubmed: 19997606
Top Stroke Rehabil. 2011 May-Jun;18(3):258-68
pubmed: 21642063
World J Orthop. 2017 Nov 18;8(11):815-828
pubmed: 29184756
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002 Aug;83(8):1138-44
pubmed: 12161837
Clin Neurophysiol. 2015 Jan;126(1):154-9
pubmed: 24910150
J Biomech. 2014 Jan 22;47(2):417-23
pubmed: 24290175
Hum Mov Sci. 2018 Apr;58:175-184
pubmed: 29448162
J Biomech. 2009 Aug 7;42(11):1673-7
pubmed: 19457488