Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The aim of this observational study is to analyze how impaired proprioception affects the gait, reaction time, balance and functioning of stroke patients.
Research questions:
Participants will be assessed once using standard functional clinical tests and the rehabilitation devices.
Researchers will compare stroke patients and healthy volunteers to see, if there are differences in proprioception deficits, reaction time and balance.
For this prospective observational study, ischemic - stroke survivors (study group) and healthy volunteers matched for age and gender (control group) will be recruited. Study procedures will be performed in the morning including one-time functional assessment of proprioception, gait, balance and reaction time using standard clinical tests (Timed Up and Go Test, sit to stand test, 10m walk test, Wisconsin scale, Berg scale, Ashworth scale, Brunstrom scale, Barthel Scale, Rankin scale and FAC) and rehabilitation devices (Luna EMG - proprioception assessment, Pablo - gait parameters assessment, Omego Plus - proprioception assessment, ALFA stabilometric platform - balance and reaction time assessment).
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Study group | stroke patients |
| |
| Control group | healthy volunteers |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| observation | Other | observation |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Correlation between the knee proprioception deficit (degree) and gait speed (m/s) | The knee proprioception deficit (degree) will be assessed by rehabilitation robot Luna EMG and gait speed (m/s) will be assessed using inertial sensors (Pablo device) | September 2024 |
| Correlation between the knee proprioception deficit (degree) and gait time: 10-meter-Walk Test (seconds) | The knee proprioception deficit (degree) will be assessed by rehabilitation robot Luna EMG and gait time (seconds) will be assessed using inertial sensors (Pablo device) | September 2024 |
| Correlation between the knee proprioception deficit (degree) and gait cycle (steps/minute) | The knee proprioception deficit (degree) will be assessed by rehabilitation robot Luna EMG and gait cycle (steps/minute) will be assessed using inertial sensors (Pablo device) | September 2024 |
| Correlation between the knee proprioception deficit (degree) and cycle distance (cm) | The knee proprioception deficit (degree) will be assessed by rehabilitation robot Luna EMG and cycle distance (cm) will be assessed using inertial sensors (Pablo device) | September 2024 |
| Correlation between the knee proprioception deficit (degree) and ambulation status: Functional Ambulation Category (points: minimum 0, maximum 5) | The knee proprioception deficit (degree) will be assessed by rehabilitation robot Luna EMG and the ambulation status will be assessed using standard clinical scale: Functional Ambulation Category. Less points indicate worse ambulation category | September 2024 |
| Correlation between the knee proprioception deficit (degree) and kinematic and spatiotemporal gait parameters: Wisconsin scale (points: minimum 13.35, maximum 42) |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Differences in knee proprioception deficit (degree). | The knee proprioception deficit (degree) will be assessed by rehabilitation robot Luna EMG | December 2024 |
| Differences in gait speed (m/s) |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
stroke survivors up to 3 months after the stroke - patients reffered to the Department of Rehabilitation, Clinical Regional Hospital number 2 in Rzeszow, Poland (study group) and healthy volunteers matched for age and gender.
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Maciej Kochman, Dr. | Institute of Health Sciences, College of Medical Sciences, University of Rzeszów | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Department of Rehabilitation, Clinical Regional Hospital number 2 | Rzeszów | Podkarpackie Voivodeship | 35-301 | Poland |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D020521 | Stroke |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D002561 | Cerebrovascular Disorders |
| D001927 | Brain Diseases |
| D002493 | Central Nervous System Diseases |
| D009422 | Nervous System Diseases |
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D019370 | Observation |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D008722 | Methods |
| D008919 | Investigative Techniques |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The knee proprioception deficit (degree) will be assessed by rehabilitation robot Luna EMG and the kinematic and spatiotemporal gait parameters will be assessed using standard clinical scale: Wisconsin scale. The higher the score the more seriously affected the gait |
| September 2024 |
| Correlation between the knee proprioception deficit (degree) and reaction time (miliseconds) | The knee proprioception deficit (degree) will be assessed by rehabilitation robot Luna EMG and the reaction time will be assessed using stabilometric platform (Alfa) | September 2024 |
| Correlation between the knee proprioception deficit (degree) and balance parameter: lateral sways (cm) | The knee proprioception deficit (degree) will be assessed by rehabilitation robot Luna EMG and the lateral sways (cm) will be assessed using stabilometric platform (Alfa) | September 2024 |
| Correlation between the knee proprioception deficit (degree) and balance parameter: anterior-posterior sways (cm) | The knee proprioception deficit (degree) will be assessed by rehabilitation robot Luna EMG and the anterior-posterior sways (cm) will be assessed using stabilometric platform (Alfa) | September 2024 |
| Correlation between the knee proprioception deficit (degree) and balance parameter: path length (cm) | The knee proprioception deficit (degree) will be assessed by rehabilitation robot Luna EMG and the path length (cm) will be assessed using stabilometric platform (Alfa) | September 2024 |
| Correlation between the knee proprioception deficit (degree) and balance parameter: lateral velocity (cm/s) | The knee proprioception deficit (degree) will be assessed by rehabilitation robot Luna EMG and the lateral velocity (cm/s) will be assessed using stabilometric platform (Alfa) | September 2024 |
| Correlation between the knee proprioception deficit (degree) and balance parameter: anterio-posterior velocity (cm/s) | The knee proprioception deficit (degree) will be assessed by rehabilitation robot Luna EMG and the anterior-posterior velocity (cm/s) will be assessed using stabilometric platform (Alfa) | September 2024 |
| Correlation between the knee proprioception deficit (degree) and balance parameter: COP area (cm2) | The knee proprioception deficit (degree) will be assessed by rehabilitation robot Luna EMG and the COP area (cm2) will be assessed using stabilometric platform (Alfa). COP - center of pressure | September 2024 |
| Correlation between the knee proprioception deficit (degree) and balance: Berg Balance Scale (points: minimum 0, maximum 56) | The knee proprioception deficit (degree) will be assessed by rehabilitation robot Luna EMG and the balance will be assessed using standard clinical scale: Berg Balance Scale. Less points indicate worse balance | September 2024 |
| Correlation between the knee proprioception deficit (degree) and dynamic balance: Timed Up and Go Test (seconds) | The knee proprioception deficit (degree) will be assessed by rehabilitation robot Luna EMG and the dynamic balance will be assessed using standard clinical scale Timed Up and Go Test. Longer time of performing test indicates worse dynamic balance | September 2024 |
| Correlation between the knee proprioception deficit (degree) and functional status: 5 times Sit To Stand Test (seconds) | The knee proprioception deficit (degree) will be assessed by rehabilitation robot Luna EMG and the functional status will be assessed using standard clinical scale: 5 times Sit To Stand Test. Longer time of performing test indicates worse functional status | September 2024 |
| Correlation between the knee proprioception deficit (degree) and spasticity: Modified Ashworth Scale (points: minimum 0, maximum 4) | The knee proprioception deficit (degree) will be assessed by rehabilitation robot Luna EMG and the spasticity will be assessed using standard clinical scale: Modified Ashworth Scale. Better score indicates worse spasticity | September 2024 |
| Correlation between the knee proprioception deficit (degree) and functional status: Brunnstrom scale (points: minimum 1, maximum 6) | The knee proprioception deficit (degree) will be assessed by rehabilitation robot Luna EMG and the functional status will be assessed using standard clinical scale: Brunnstrom scale. Better score indicates better functional status | September 2024 |
| Correlation between the knee proprioception deficit (degree) and functional status: Rankin scale (points: minimum 0, maximum 5) | The knee proprioception deficit (degree) will be assessed by rehabilitation robot Luna EMG and the functional status will be assessed using standard clinical scale: Rankin scale. Better score indicates worse functional status | September 2024 |
| Correlation between the knee proprioception deficit (degree) and functional status: Barthel scale (points: minimum 0, maximum 100) | The knee proprioception deficit (degree) will be assessed by rehabilitation robot Luna EMG and the functional status will be assessed using standard clinical scale: Barthel. Better score indicates better functional status | September 2024 |
Gait speed will be assessed using inertial sensors (Pablo device)
| December 2024 |
| Differences in gait time: 10-meter-Walk Test (seconds) | Gait time will be assessed using inertial sensors (Pablo device) | December 2024 |
| Differences in gait cycle (steps/minute) | Gait cycle will be assessed using inertial sensors (Pablo device) | December 2024 |
| Differences in cycle distance (cm) | Cycle distance will be assessed using inertial sensors (Pablo device) | December 2024 |
| Differences in ambulation status: Functional Ambulation Category (points: minimum 0, maximum 5) | The ambulation status will be assessed using standard clinical scale: Functional Ambulation Category. Less points indicate worse ambulation category | December 2024 |
| Differences in kinematic and spatiotemporal gait parameters: Wisconsin scale (points: minimum 13.35, maximum 42) | The kinematic and spatiotemporal gait parameters will be assessed using standard clinical scale: Wisconsin scale. The higher the score the more seriously affected the gait | December 2024 |
| Differences in reaction time (ms). | Reaction time will be assessed using stabilometric platform (Alfa) | December 2024 |
| Differences in balance parameter: lateral sways (cm) | Lateral sways will be assessed using stabilometric platform (Alfa) | December 2024 |
| Differences in balance parameter: anterior-posterior sways (cm) | Anterior-posterior sways will be assessed using stabilometric platform (Alfa) | December 2024 |
| Differences in balance parameter: path length (cm) | Path length will be assessed using stabilometric platform (Alfa) | December 2024 |
| Differences in balance parameter: lateral velocity (cm/s) | Lateral velocity will be assessed using stabilometric platform (Alfa) | December 2024 |
| Differences in balance parameter: anterior-posterior velocity (cm/s) | Anterior-posterior velocity will be assessed using stabilometric platform (Alfa) | December 2024 |
| Differences in balance parameter: COP area (cm2) | This balance parameter will be assessed using stabilometric platform (Alfa); COP - center of pressure | December 2024 |
| Differences in balance: Berg Balance Scale (points: minimum 0, maximum 56) | Balance will be assessed using standard clinical scale: Berg Balance Scale. Less points indicate worse balance | December 2024 |
| Differences in dynamic balance: Timed Up and Go Test (seconds) | Dynamic balance will be assessed using standard clinical scale Timed Up and Go Test. Longer time of performing test indicates worse dynamic balance | December 2024 |
| Differences in functional status: 5 times Sit To Stand Test (seconds) | The functional status will be assessed using standard clinical scale: 5 times Sit To Stand Test. Longer time of performing test indicates worse functional status | December 2024 |
| Differences in spasticity: Modified Ashworth Scale (points: minimum 0, maximum 4) | The spasticity will be assessed using standard clinical scale: Modified Ashworth Scale. Better score indicates worse spasticity | December 2024 |
| Differences in functional status: Brunnstrom scale (points: minimum 1, maximum 6) | The functional status will be assessed using standard clinical scale: Brunnstrom scale. Better score indicates better functional status | December 2024 |
| Differences in functional status: Rankin scale (points: minimum 0, maximum 5) | The functional status will be assessed using standard clinical scale: Rankin scale. Better score indicates worse functional status | December 2024 |
| Differences in functional status: Barthel scale (points: minimum 0, maximum 100) | The functional status will be assessed using standard clinical scale: Barthel scale. Better score indicates better functional status | December 2024 |
| D014652 | Vascular Diseases |
| D002318 | Cardiovascular Diseases |