Towards Upright Pedalling to drive recovery in people who cannot walk in the first weeks after stroke: movement patterns and measurement

Trunk training following stroke

BACKGROUND

Previous systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials have investigated the effect of post-stroke trunk training. Findings suggest that trunk training improves trunk function and activity or the execution of a task or action by an individual. But it is unclear what effect trunk training has on daily life activities, quality of life, and other outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of trunk training after stroke on activities of daily living (ADL), trunk function, arm-hand function or activity, standing balance, leg function, walking ability, and quality of life when comparing with both dose-matched as non-dose-matched control groups.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and five other databases to 25 October 2021. We searched trial registries to identify additional relevant published, unpublished, and ongoing trials. We hand searched the bibliographies of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials comparing trunk training versus non-dose-matched or dose-matched control therapy including adults (18 years or older) with either ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke. Outcome measures of trials included ADL, trunk function, arm-hand function or activity, standing balance, leg function, walking ability, and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two main analyses were carried out. The first analysis included trials where the therapy duration of control intervention was non-dose-matched with the therapy duration of the experimental group and the second analysis where there was comparison with a dose-matched control intervention (equal therapy duration in both the control as in the experimental group).  MAIN RESULTS: We included 68 trials with a total of 2585 participants. In the analysis of the non-dose-matched groups (pooling of all trials with different training duration in the experimental as in the control intervention), we could see that trunk training had a positive effect on ADL (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 1.24; P < 0.001; 5 trials; 283 participants; very low-certainty evidence), trunk function (SMD 1.49, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.71; P < 0.001; 14 trials, 466 participants; very low-certainty evidence), arm-hand function (SMD 0.67, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.15; P = 0.006; 2 trials, 74 participants; low-certainty evidence), arm-hand activity (SMD 0.84, 95% CI 0.009 to 1.59; P = 0.03; 1 trial, 30 participants; very low-certainty evidence), standing balance (SMD 0.57, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.79; P < 0.001; 11 trials, 410 participants; very low-certainty evidence), leg function (SMD 1.10, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.63; P < 0.001; 1 trial, 64 participants; very low-certainty evidence), walking ability (SMD 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.94; P < 0.001; 11 trials, 383 participants; low-certainty evidence) and quality of life (SMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.89; P = 0.01; 2 trials, 108 participants; low-certainty evidence). Non-dose-matched trunk training led to no difference for the outcome serious adverse events (odds ratio: 7.94, 95% CI 0.16 to 400.89; 6 trials, 201 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In the analysis of the dose-matched groups (pooling of all trials with equal training duration in the experimental as in the control intervention), we saw that trunk training had a positive effect on trunk function (SMD 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.16; P < 0.001; 36 trials, 1217 participants; very low-certainty evidence), standing balance (SMD 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.15; P < 0.001; 22 trials, 917 participants; very low-certainty evidence), leg function (SMD 1.57, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.87; P < 0.001; 4 trials, 254 participants; very low-certainty evidence), walking ability (SMD 0.69, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.87; P < 0.001; 19 trials, 535 participants; low-certainty evidence) and quality of life (SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.11; P < 0.001; 2 trials, 111 participants; low-certainty evidence), but not for ADL (SMD 0.10; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to 0.37; P = 0.48; 9 trials; 229 participants; very low-certainty evidence), arm-hand function (SMD 0.76, 95% CI -0.18 to 1.70; P = 0.11; 1 trial, 19 participants; low-certainty evidence), arm-hand activity (SMD 0.17, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.56; P = 0.38; 3 trials, 112 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Trunk training also led to no difference for the outcome serious adverse events (odds ratio (OR): 7.39, 95% CI 0.15 to 372.38; 10 trials, 381 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Time post stroke led to a significant subgroup difference for standing balance (P < 0.001) in non-dose-matched therapy. In non-dose-matched therapy, different trunk therapy approaches had a significant effect on ADL (< 0.001), trunk function (P < 0.001) and standing balance (< 0.001). When participants received dose-matched therapy, analysis of subgroup differences showed that the trunk therapy approach had a significant effect on ADL (P = 0.001), trunk function (P < 0.001), arm-hand activity (P < 0.001), standing balance (P = 0.002), and leg function (P = 0.002). Also for dose-matched therapy, subgroup analysis for time post stroke resulted in a significant difference for the outcomes standing balance (P < 0.001), walking ability (P = 0.003) and leg function (P < 0.001), time post stroke significantly modified the effect of intervention.  Core-stability trunk (15 trials), selective-trunk (14 trials) and unstable-trunk (16 trials) training approaches were mostly applied in the included trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence to suggest that trunk training as part of rehabilitation improves ADL, trunk function, standing balance, walking ability, upper and lower limb function, and quality of life in people after stroke. Core-stability, selective-, and unstable-trunk training were the trunk training approaches mostly applied in the included trials. When considering only trials with a low risk of bias, results were mostly confirmed, with very low to moderate certainty, depending on the outcome.

Caveats and Recommendations to Assess the Validity and Reliability of Cycling Power Meters: A Systematic Scoping Review

A large number of power meters have become commercially available during the last decades to provide power output (PO) measurement. Some of these power meters were evaluated for validity in the literature. This study aimed to perform a review of the available literature on the validity of cycling power meters. PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and Google Scholar have been explored with PRISMA methodology. A total of 74 studies have been extracted for the reviewing process. Validity is a general quality of the measurement determined by the assessment of different metrological properties: Accuracy, sensitivity, repeatability, reproducibility, and robustness. Accuracy was most often studied from the metrological property (74 studies). Reproducibility was the second most studied (40 studies) property. Finally, repeatability, sensitivity, and robustness were considerably less studied with only 7, 5, and 5 studies, respectively. The SRM power meter is the most used as a gold standard in the studies. Moreover, the number of participants was very different among them, from 0 (when using a calibration rig) to 56 participants. The PO tested was up to 1700 W, whereas the pedalling cadence ranged between 40 and 180 rpm, including submaximal and maximal exercises. Other exercise conditions were tested, such as torque, position, temperature, and vibrations. This review provides some caveats and recommendations when testing the validity of a cycling power meter, including all of the metrological properties (accuracy, sensitivity, repeatability, reproducibility, and robustness) and some exercise conditions (PO range, sprint, pedalling cadence, torque, position, participant, temperature, vibration, and field test).

Identification of neuromuscular targets for restoration of walking ability after stroke: Precursor to precision rehabilitation

OBJECTIVES

Restoration of walking is a priority for stroke survivors and key target for physical therapies. Upright pedalling (UP) can provide functional walking-like activity using a variety of muscle synergies; it is unclear which synergies might be most useful for recovery of walking. Objectives here were as follows: to examine whether neuromuscular measures derived during UP might identify targets for walking rehabilitation after stroke and to determine test-retest repeatability and concurrent validity of the measures.

DESIGN

This was a prospective correlational study.

SETTING

The study was carried out in a movement science laboratory.

PARTICIPANTS

The participants were 18 adults with stroke (StrS) and 10 healthy older adults (HOA).

INTERVENTION/MEASUREMENT

StrS and HOA took part in two identical measurement sessions. During UP, surface electromyography and kinematic data were recorded and then processed to derive three measures: reciprocal activity of quadriceps and hamstrings; percentage muscle activity "on" according to crank angle; and smoothness of movement.

RESULTS

HOA and StrS demonstrated differences in reciprocal muscle activity (p = .044) and quadriceps activity according to crank angle (p = .034) but pedalled similarly smoothly (p = .367). For muscle activation according to crank angle in StrS, intraclass correlation coefficients (95% confidence interval) showing acceptable repeatability were 0.46 [0.32, 0.58] affected quadriceps; 0.43 [0.28, 0.56] affected hamstrings; and 0.67 [0.56, 0.75] unaffected quadriceps.

CONCLUSION

Muscle activation according to crank angle is a promising measure of lower limb impairment during functional activity after stroke; subsequent investigation should determine magnitude of variance between testing sessions. Reciprocal activity of quadriceps and hamstrings muscles and quadriceps activity according to crank angle are both potential targets for physical therapies to improve motor recovery. Further investigations are warranted.

Community cycling exercise for stroke survivors is feasible and acceptable

Background: Physical activity is recommended after stroke but levels for stroke survivors are typically low. The use of indoor recumbent cycling, delivered through local government leisure facilities, may increase access to exercise among stroke survivors. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of an indoor cycling program delivered through existing local government services. Methods: Participants were recruited through stroke liaison nurses and public advertising. After a home visit to assess eligibility and conduct psychological and general health assessments, participants attended their local leisure center for an initial fitness test and short battery of physical tests. Then, an 8 week training program was designed with weekly goals. Following the program the assessments were retaken along with an evaluation questionnaire. In-depth, semi-structured, interviews were conducted with 15 participants and five fitness coaches. Results: One hundred fifteen individuals volunteered to participate during a 10-month recruitment period, 77 met the inclusion criteria and consented, 66/77 (86%) completed the program including all nine non-ambulatory participants. The program and procedures (recruitment and outcome measures) were feasible and acceptable to participants (81% reported following the program). Participants were generally very positive about the experience. Significant improvements in sit-to-stand capacity (M_pre = 25.2 s, M_post = 19.0 s, p = .002), activities of daily living (NEADL, M_pre = 12.2, M_post = 13.2, p = .002), psychosocial functioning (SAQOL, M_pre = 3.82, M_post = 4.15, p = .001), energy (SAQOL, M_pre = 3.75, M_post = 4.02, p = .018) and depression (GHQ, M_pre = .97, M_post = .55, p = .009) were observed. Conclusion: A cycling-based exercise program delivered through local leisure center staff and facilities was shown to be feasible and acceptable for people living with stroke.

Nonlinear approach to study the acute effects of static and dynamic stretching on local dynamic stability in lower extremity joint kinematics and muscular activity during pedalling

Researchers have reported contradictory results on the effect of static and dynamic stretching on subsequent performance. Due to the importance of performance through static and dynamic stretching, the aim of this study is to investigate the acute effects of static and dynamic stretching protocols on local dynamic stability in lower extremity joint kinematics and muscular activities during pedalling using a nonlinear dynamics approach. Using a randomised crossover trial design, fifteen active males participated voluntarily in this research (mass: 69.02 ± 10.52 kg, height: 174.00 ± 6.74 cm, and age: 21.20 ± 1.47 years) and completed a pedalling trial in situations of without stretching (WS), after static (SS), and dynamic stretching (DS) of lower extremity. The lower extremity joint angles in the sagittal plane and the electrical activity of soleus, gastrocnemius medialis, tibialis anterior, vastus medialis, biceps femoris, and rectus femoris muscles were collected during 30 pedalling cycles at 70 rates per minute. The results of the repeated measure ANOVA indicated that the knee and ankle angle largest LyE was significantly lower in DS compared to WS and SS. The largest LyE in muscle activity is also significantly lower for all the muscles after DS compared to WS and SS (P ≤ 0.05). Regarding the positive effects of DS on the joints and the muscle activity local dynamic stability, it is suggested to use DS than SS in the warm-up program before repetitive activities like pedalling.