Search

To examine whether using a cane would improve spatiotemporal parameters of walking, i.e., speed, stride length, cadence, and symmetry after stroke. Searches were conducted in eight databases. The experimental condition was walking with a cane. Four outcomes were of interest: walking speed, stride length, cadence, and symmetry. Twelve studies were included. Results from nine studies suggested that individuals with stroke walked 0.01 m/s (SD 0.06) slower with a single-point cane, compared with no cane. Two studies suggested a reduction in cadence (MD-5 steps/min, SD2) and an increase in stride length (MD 0.08 m, SD 0.01). Three studies suggested that individuals walked 0.06 m/s (SD 0.07) slower with a four-point cane, compared with no cane. Four studies suggested that individuals walked 0.06 m/s (SD 0.04) faster with a single- point cane compared with a four-point cane. Results regarding other outcomes were inconclusive. Results showed no worthwhile improvements in spatiotemporal parameters of walking with a single-point cane and a slight reduction with a four-point cane, compared with no cane. Individuals walked slightly faster with a single-point cane compared with a four-point cane, but the evidence is insufficient to support this superiority. A single-point cane may not improve spatiotemporal parameters of walking after stroke. Walking with a four-point cane may slightly decrease spatiotemporal parameters of walking. Canes may be prescribed without the fear of negatively impairing walking kinematics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose:To evaluate which measures of physical impairments of both upper extremity (UE) and lower extremity (LE) would predict restrictions in participation with 105 community-dwelling stroke subjects. Methods:For this cross-sectional, exploratory study, participation was assessed by the daily activity and social role domains of the Assessment of Life Habits (LIFE-H). The potential predictors included measures of physical impairments (UE and LE motor recovery, sensation, motor coordination, and strength deficits). Results:Step-wise multiple linear regression analyses revealed that, for the daily activity domain, LE strength deficits and UE motor recovery explained 28% of the variance in the LIFE-H scores and LE strength deficits alone explained 22% (F = 29.5;p< .0001). For the social role domain, LE strength deficits and sensation explained 22% of the variance in the LIFE-H scores and LE strength deficits alone explained 16% (F = 20.6;p< .0001). Conclusions:Strength deficits of the LE muscles were the physical impairment variables that best predicted participation in both daily activity and social role domains of the LIFE-H. Although significant, UE motor recovery and LE sensation added little to the explained variance. Future research is needed to determine whether progressive resistance strength training program enhances participation after stroke.Implications for RehabilitationResidual strength deficits of the LE muscles were the physical impairments that showed to be the main predictors of restrictions in participation, as determined by the daily activity and social role domains of the LIFE-H 3.1.It is possible that stroke individuals would benefit from physical interventions aiming at improving the strength of the LE muscles, when the goal is to enhance participation. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]