1 / 50

Treadmill Training

Treadmill Training. Jill Zwicker, PhD, OT(C) Tanja Mayson, MSc, BScPT Val Ward, BScPT. Pediatric Symposium March 1, 2011. Outline. Review methods and findings of our recently published overview of systematic reviews of treadmill training with children with motor impairment

moya
Télécharger la présentation

Treadmill Training

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Treadmill Training Jill Zwicker, PhD, OT(C) Tanja Mayson, MSc, BScPT Val Ward, BScPT Pediatric Symposium March 1, 2011

  2. Outline • Review methods and findings of our recently published overview of systematic reviews of treadmill training with children with motor impairment • Share results of treadmill training pilot study conducted at Sunny Hill • Share practical application of treadmill training with children through case study • Discuss implications for practice

  3. Background • Several studies have examined the effectiveness of treadmill training (TT) with and without partial body-weight support (PBWS) in children with motor impairments • Research results been variable - difficult to interpret which type of TT provides superior results and for which motor impairments it is effective

  4. PBWSTT • involves the use of a body-weight support (BWS) harness during the treatment • is congruent with contemporary models of motor control and motor learning • is a task-specific approach with emphasis on repetition and practice

  5. Purpose of Overview • to synthesize the current evidence from systematic reviews on the effectiveness of TT with/without PBWS in children with motor impairments • Inclusion criteria: • systematic review • either PBWS and/or TT as an intervention • children 0-21 years of age • a diagnosis consistent with having a motor impairment

  6. Methods • Systematically searched 10 databases • Independently reviewed titles, abstracts, full-text articles • Independently reviewed quality of each systematic review using the AMSTAR criteria, e.g., • duplicate study selection and data extraction • comprehensive literature search • scientific quality assessed and documented • publication bias assessed

  7. Methods continued • Independently extracted descriptive and outcome data • Classified individual studies according to Sackett’s Levels of Evidence • Organized outcomes according to the components in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF): • Body Structures and Functions • Activity and Participation

  8. Article Inclusion/Exclusion Flowchart

  9. Summary of All Systematic Reviews

  10. Children with CP in Each Review

  11. Children with other Motor Impairments • Children with SCI only included in one systematic review (Damino et al., 2010) • 7 children • Level of injury: 5 cervical, 2 thoracic • ASIA Class: 1-A; 5-C; 1-D • PBWSTT and mixed treadmill training • Children with Down Syndrome • Only children 4-13 months • Treadmill training only

  12. Children with other Motor Impairments • Other diagnoses: Rett syndrome cerebellar ataxia following brainstem infarct traumatic brain injury • PBWSTT, TT, and Mixed TT

  13. Children with other Motor Impairments • Mixed diagnoses include: congenital myotonia Angelman syndrome Guillain-Barré incomplete paraplegia stroke encephalitis • PBWSTT, Robotic PBWSTT, and Mixed TT

  14. Levels of Evidence • As some studies were rated differently across the systematic reviews, we independently determined the level of evidence for each of the 38 studies

  15. Results • No reported negative outcomes • Many inconsistencies across reviews in how outcome data reported • In this overview, outcomes classified as: • Positive = trend toward better outcomes or if more than half of the sample achieved positive gains • Positive =statistically significant positive findings • No change or inconclusive

  16. Results Cerebral Palsy • Largest number of studies • Most pertain to PBWSTT • Evidence levels II to V

  17. Results: CP

  18. Results: CP

  19. Results: CP

  20. Results: CP

  21. Results Down Syndrome • 6 studies but only 2 samples • TT • Levels of evidence II and IV

  22. Results: Down Syndrome

  23. Results Spinal Cord Injury • 6 studies • PBWSTT or Mixed TT • Levels of evidence IV or V

  24. Results: SCI

  25. Results Other diagnoses: • 3 studies • PBWSTT, robotic PBWSTT or Mixed TT • Levels of evidence IV or V

  26. Results: Other

  27. Discussion Comparison of Reviews: • Very few studies included in all reviews • Quality relatively high for 4 of 5 reviews (AMSTAR) • Discrepancies in assignment of levels of evidence and how outcomes interpreted

  28. Discussion All systematic reviews concluded: • TT is safe • Results are encouraging, primarily in body structure and function • Insufficient evidence to confidently conclude that TT has positive effects on walking in children with CP, other CNS impairments, and SCI • 1 high quality review supports use of TT in children with DS

  29. Clinical Relevance Cerebral Palsy: • Different types of TT are encouraging in BS and F and activity dimensions of ICF; not much information on participation • Intervention parameters: highly variable

  30. Clinical Relevance

  31. Clinical Relevance

  32. Clinical Relevance Down Syndrome: • Results significant in BS and F; no outcomes in A and P • Intervention parameters: • 20cm/s for 6-9 minutes per day until achievement of independent walking

  33. Clinical Relevance SCI • PBWSTT research in early stages is encouraging • Intervention parameters: • Start with 40-80% BWS and decrease over time • At least 3 times per week for 8 weeks or more Other CNS disorders • All types of TT might be of benefit • Intervention parameters: highly variable

  34. Implications for Research • Need more (rigorous) research regarding impact of TT on: • Activity and Participation • Individualized goals • Need more research regarding which parameters are best for children with: • CP • SCI • Other CNS impairments

  35. Conclusion of Overview • For children with CP: • most consistent and statistically significant improvements using PBWSTT or TT • outcome measures: GMFM D and E dimensions • For children with DS: • TT can have a positive impact on BS and F dimensions, including onset of walking • For children with SCI and other CNS impairments: • insufficient evidence

  36. Pilot Study • Aim: To evaluate attainment of parents’ goals after their children with CP participated PBWSTT • Inclusion criteria: • Diagnosis of CP • Ages 8-15 years • GMFCS II or III

  37. Protocol • 4-8 weeks of treadmill training • 3x/week; up to 3 x 10 minute bouts with up to 5 min. break between bouts • Orthoses worn during intervention • BWS started between 0 and 80% and decreased to 0% by end of intervention • Speed started at 0.4 to 0.5mph and reached 1.8 to 4.0 mph over course of intervention

  38. Outcome Measures Goal Attainment Scaling -2: Current level of attainment -1: Less than expected improvement 0: Expected level of improvement +1: Exceeds expectations +2: Highly exceeds expectations

  39. Outcome Measures Likert Scale Used to Rate Satisfaction with Current Level of Goal Attainment 1= Very satisfied 2= Somewhat satisfied 3= Neither satisfied nor unsatisfied 4= Somewhat unsatisfied 5= Very unsatisfied

  40. Results: Participants

  41. Results: GAS and Satisfaction

  42. Interpretation • Treadmill training can help achieve individualized goals • Subsequent treadmill training research would be well served by continued inclusion of family-centered goals as outcome measures

  43. Clinical Example • Types of patients • Developmental delay • Cerebral palsy • Brain injury • Pre-ambulatory, ambulatory, non-ambulatory

  44. Video

  45. H • 12 yr old • Cerebal palsy- spastic diplegia • GMFCS II • Started walking at age 6 after hamstring release • Problems: • planovalgus feet • weakness • stiff legged and crouch gait pattern • hamstring and iliopsoas tightness

  46. Goal Pretraining level • H is able to stop after 3-4 steps with assist Goal • H will be able to stop, turn and continue walking without falling After Training • H is able to stop and turn without holding on

  47. Training sessions • 3 times a week • Started with 80%BWS gradually decreasing to no support and no harness • Initially required 1 break • Final session completed with no break • Speed started at 0.4 • Speed for final session 1.4 • Worked on balance, backwards walking

  48. Combined results from the pilot study • Participates more in PE and at recess • Able to walk in community without assistance • Another client participated in the 1.5 km Sun Run after training • Another client reported being able to shop with friends at the mall for 0.5 hr

  49. Comments or Questions?

More Related