7 research outputs found

    Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial to Address Balance Deficits After Traumatic Brain Injury

    No full text
    Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of an in-home 12-week physical therapy (PT) intervention that utilized a virtual reality (VR) gaming system to improve balance in individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Setting: Home-based exercise program (HEP). Participants: Individuals (N=63; traditional HEP n=32; VR n=31) at least 1 year post-TBI, ambulating independently within the home, not currently receiving PT services. Main Outcome Measures: Primary: Community Balance and Mobility Scale (CB&M); Secondary: Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest), Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC), Participation Assessment with Recombined Tools-Objective (PART-O). Results: No significant between-group differences were observed in the CB&M over the study duration (P=.9983) for individuals who received VR compared to those who received a HEP to address balance deficits after chronic TBI nor in any of the secondary outcomes: BESTest (P=.8822); ABC (P=.4343) and PART-O (P=.8822). However, both groups demonstrated significant improvements in CB&M and BESTest from baseline to 6, 12, and at 12 weeks follow-up (all P\u27s \u3c.001). Regardless of treatment group, 52% of participants met or exceeded the minimal detectable change of 8 points on the CB&M at 24 weeks and 38% met or exceeded the minimal detectable change of 7.81 points on the BESTest. Conclusion: This study did not find that VR training was more beneficial than a traditional HEP for improving balance. However, individuals with chronic TBI in both treatment groups demonstrated improvements in balance in response to these interventions which were completed independently in the home environment

    Balance in chronic traumatic brain injury: correlations between clinical measures and a self-report measure

    No full text
    Objective: To assess associations among commonly used self-report and clinical measures of balance in chronic TBI. Design: Cross-sectional analysis of balance in a convenience sample of individuals at least one year post TBI. Main Outcome Measures: Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC) (self-reported balance impairment), Community Balance and Mobility Scale (CB&M) (clinical measure validated in TBI), and Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) (clinical measure not validated in TBI). Methods: Fifty-nine individuals (64% male, mean age 48.2 years) ambulating independently within the home participated in testing. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to quantify the direction and magnitude of the relationships among the three balance impairment measures. Results: A significant positive correlation was noted between the ABC and CB&M (r = 0.42, p = 0.0008), between the ABC and BESTest (r = 0.46, p = 0.0002), and between the CB&M and BESTest (r = 0.86, p \u3c 0.0001). Conclusions: This is the first study we are aware of in the chronic moderate to severe TBI population directly comparing patient’s self-reported balance impairment with clinical measures. Positive correlations were found between the self-report measure and both clinical measures. Overall, individuals with chronic TBI tend to self-report less impaired balance than clinical measures indicate. These results provide preliminary evidence to support the need for validation of the BESTest in this population. Abbreviations: ABC: Activities-specific balance confidence scale; BESTest: balance evaluation systems test; BOS: base of support; COM: center of mass; CB&M: community balance and mobility scale; CI: confidence interval; IQR: interquartile range; PTs: physical therapists; SD: standard deviation; SE: standard error; TBI: traumatic brain injury

    Cost-effectiveness analysis of overground robotic training versus conventional locomotor training in people with spinal cord injury

    No full text
    Abstract Background Few, if any estimates of cost-effectiveness for locomotor training strategies following spinal cord injury (SCI) are available. The purpose of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of locomotor training strategies following spinal cord injury (overground robotic locomotor training versus conventional locomotor training) by injury status (complete versus incomplete) using a practice-based cohort. Methods A probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a prospective, practice-based cohort from four participating Spinal Cord Injury Model System sites. Conventional locomotor training strategies (conventional training) were compared to overground robotic locomotor training (overground robotic training). Conventional locomotor training included treadmill-based training with body weight support, overground training, and stationary robotic systems. The outcome measures included the calculation of quality adjusted life years (QALYs) using the EQ-5D and therapy costs. We estimate cost-effectiveness using the incremental cost utility ratio and present results on the cost-effectiveness plane and on cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results Participants in the prospective, practice-based cohort with complete EQ-5D data (n = 99) qualified for the analysis. Both conventional training and overground robotic training experienced an improvement in QALYs. Only people with incomplete SCI improved with conventional locomotor training, 0.045 (SD 0.28), and only people with complete SCI improved with overground robotic training, 0.097 (SD 0.20). Costs were lower for conventional training, 1758(SD1758 (SD 1697) versus overground robotic training 3952(SD3952 (SD 3989), and lower for those with incomplete versus complete injury. Conventional overground training was more effective and cost less than robotic therapy for people with incomplete SCI. Overground robotic training was more effective and cost more than conventional training for people with complete SCI. The incremental cost utility ratio for overground robotic training for people with complete spinal cord injury was $12,353/QALY. Conclusions The most cost-effective locomotor training strategy for people with SCI differed based on injury completeness. Conventional training was more cost-effective than overground robotic training for people with incomplete SCI. Overground robotic training was more cost-effective than conventional training for people with complete SCI. The effect estimates may be subject to limitations associated with small sample sizes and practice-based evidence methodology. These estimates provide a baseline for future research

    Non-invasive spinal cord electrical stimulation for arm and hand function in chronic tetraplegia: a safety and efficacy trial

    No full text
    Cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) leads to permanent impairment of arm and hand functions. Here we conducted a prospective, single-arm, multicenter, open-label, non-significant risk trial that evaluated the safety and efficacy of ARC Therapy to improve arm and hand functions in people with chronic SCI. ARC Therapy involves the delivery of externally applied electrical stimulation over the cervical spinal cord during structured rehabilitation. The primary endpoints were safety and efficacy as measured by whether the majority of participants exhibited significant improvement in both strength and functional performance in response to ARC Therapy compared to the end of an equivalent period of rehabilitation alone. Sixty participants completed the protocol. No serious adverse events related to ARC Therapy were reported, and the primary effectiveness endpoint was met. Seventy-two percent of participants demonstrated improvements greater than the minimally important difference criteria for both strength and functional domains. Secondary endpoint analysis revealed significant improvements in fingertip pinch force, hand prehension and strength, upper extremity motor and sensory abilities and self-reported increases in quality of life. These results demonstrate the safety and efficacy of ARC Therapy to improve hand and arm functions in people living with cervical SCI. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04697472
    corecore