Abstract
Background:
Proper, early, and exact identification of gait impairments and their causes is regarded as a prerequisite for specific therapy and a useful control tool to assess efficacy of rehabilitation. There is a need for simple tools allowing for quickly detecting general tendencies.
Objective:
The aim of this paper is to present the outcomes of traditional and fuzzy-based analysis of the outcomes of post-stroke gait reeducation using the NeuroDevelopmental Treatment-Bobath (NDT-Bobath) method.
Materials and methods:
The research was conducted among 40 adult people: 20 of them after ischemic stroke constituted the study group, and 20 healthy people constituted the reference group. Study group members were treated through 2 weeks (10 therapeutic sessions) using the NDT-Bobath method. Spatio-temporal gait parameters were assessed before and after therapy and compared using novel fuzzy-based assessment tool.
Results:
Achieved results of rehabilitation, observed as changes of gait parameters, were statistically relevant and reflected recovery. One-number outcomes from the proposed fuzzy-based estimator proved moderate to high consistency with the results of the traditional gait assessment.
Conclusions:
Observed statistically significant and favorable changes in the health status of patients, described by gait parameters, were reflected also in outcomes of fuzzy-based analysis. Proposed fuzzy-based measure increases possibility of the clinical gait assessment toward more objective clinical reasoning based on common use of the mHealth solutions.
Author contributions: The authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.
Research funding: None declared.
Employment or leadership: None declared.
Honorarium: None declared.
Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.
References
1. Beauchet O, Annweiler C, Callisaya ML, De Cock AM, Helbostad JL, Kressig RW, et al. Poor gait performance and prediction of dementia: results from a meta-analysis. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2016;17:482–90.10.1016/j.jamda.2015.12.092Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
2. Jahn K, Heinze C, Selge C, Heßelbarth K, Schniepp R. Gait disorders in geriatric patients. Classification and therapy. Nervenarzt 2015;86:431–9.10.1007/s00115-014-4182-8Search in Google Scholar PubMed
3. Rosano C, Rosso AL, Studenski SA. Aging, brain, and mobility: progresses and opportunities. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2014;69:1373–4.10.1093/gerona/glu159Search in Google Scholar PubMed
4. Shull PB, Jirattigalachote W, Hunt MA, Cutkosky MR, Delp SL. Quantified self and human movement: a review on the clinical impact of wearable sensing and feedback for gait analysis and intervention. Gait Posture 2014;40:11–9.10.1016/j.gaitpost.2014.03.189Search in Google Scholar PubMed
5. Senanayake CM, Senanayake SM. Computational intelligent gait-phase detection system to identify pathological gait. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed 2010;14:1173–9.10.1109/TITB.2010.2058813Search in Google Scholar PubMed
6. Vimieiro C, Andrada E, Witte H, Pinotti M. A computational model for dynamic analysis of the human gait. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 2015;18:799–804.10.1080/10255842.2013.848859Search in Google Scholar PubMed
7. Simonsen EB. Contributions to the understanding of gait control. Dan Med J 2014;61:B4823.Search in Google Scholar
8. Simon SR. Quantification of human motion: gait analysis-benefits and limitations to its application to clinical problems. J Biomech 2004;37:1869–80.10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.02.047Search in Google Scholar PubMed
9. Lord SE, Halligan PW, Wade DT. Visual gait analysis: the development of a clinical assessment and scale. Clin Rehabil 1998;12:107–19.10.1191/026921598666182531Search in Google Scholar PubMed
10. Tao W, Liu T, Zheng R, Feng H. Gait analysis using wearable sensors. Sensors (Basel) 2012;12:2255–83.10.3390/s120202255Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
11. Kim SJ, Lee HJ, Hwang SW, Pyo H, Yang SP, Lim MH, et al. Clinical characteristics of proper robot-assisted gait training group in non-ambulatory subacute stroke patients. Ann Rehabil Med 2016;40:183–9.10.5535/arm.2016.40.2.183Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
12. Mikołajewska E. The value of the NDT-Bobath method in post-stroke gait training. Adv Clin Exp Med 2013;22:261–72.Search in Google Scholar
13. Mikołajewska E. Associations between results of post-stroke NDT-Bobath rehabilitation in gait parameters, ADL and hand functions. Adv Clin Exp Med 2013;22:731–8.Search in Google Scholar
14. Armand S, Watelain E, Roux E, Mercier M, Lepoutre FX. Linking clinical measurements and kinematic gait patterns of toe-walking using fuzzy decision trees. Gait Posture 2007;25:475–84.10.1016/j.gaitpost.2006.05.014Search in Google Scholar PubMed
15. Sagawa Y Jr, Watelain E, De Coulon G, Kaelin A, Gorce P, Armand S. Are clinical measurements linked to the gait deviation index in cerebral palsy patients? Gait Posture 2013;38:276–80.10.1016/j.gaitpost.2012.11.026Search in Google Scholar PubMed
©2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
