Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume 82, Issue 8 , Pages 1057-1065, August 2001

Gait after stroke: Initial deficit and changes in temporal patterns for each gait phase☆☆★★

Schools of Physiotherapy (Goldie), Phychological Sciences (Matyas), and Human Biosciences (Evans), La Trobe University, Victoria, Australia

Accepted 9 October 2000.

Abstract 

Goldie PA, Matyas TA, Evans OM. Gait after stroke: initial deficit and changes in temporal patterns for each gait phase. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001;82;1057-65. Objective: To examine which phases of the gait cycle contributed to decreased gait velocity after stroke. Design: Experimental. Setting: Inpatient rehabilitation centers. Participants: Forty-two patients with unilateral first stroke who were able to walk 10 meters; and 42 age- and gender-matched controls with no history of stroke. Interventions: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: Deficit and change expressed as duration (s) and proportion (%) for the 4 phases of the gait cycle at the time of admission to rehabilitation (test 1), a median of 31 days poststroke onset, and again 8 weeks later (test 2). Affected and unaffected single-limb support (SLS) and initial double-limb support (DLS) were compared. Results: At tests 1 and 2, the durations of the 2 DLS and unaffected SLS phases were significantly (p < .001) longer in the stroke patients than in control subjects. No difference was found between the 2 groups for duration of affected SLS at either test time. Significant (p < .001) decreases occurred over the 8-week period in the 3 phases identified to be abnormally long at test 1. Conclusion: If the goal of rehabilitation is to increase gait velocity and normalize the gait pattern, treatment should focus on decreasing the DLS and unaffected SLS phases of the gait cycle. © 2001 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Keywords:  Cerebrovascular accident, Gait, Rehabilitation

 

 Supported by an Australian Commonwealth Health Services Research and Development Grant.

☆☆ No commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article has or will confer a benefit upon the author(s) or upon any organization with which the author(s) is/are associated.

 Reprint requests to Patricia Goldie, PhD, Schl of Physiotherapy, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria 3083, Australia, e-mail: P.Goldie@latrobe.edu.au.

★★ Supplier

 a. B&L Engineering, 12309 E Florence Ave, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670.

PII: S0003-9993(01)76128-X

doi:10.1053/apmr.2001.25085

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume 82, Issue 8 , Pages 1057-1065, August 2001