The Measure Of Balance In Sitting In Patients At Post - Stroke Rehabilitation

Milan Mandić; Nataša Rančić

Research paper

Published: 17.03.2010.

<< Prev | Next >>

PDF

The Measure Of Balance In Sitting In Patients At Post - Stroke Rehabilitation

Abstract

Functional recovery is a key determinant of post-stroke rehabilitation. The aim of the paper was to show the importance of sitting balance measuring in post-stroke rehabilitation. Prospective cohort study involved 25 (9 men and 16 women) patients who suffered from the first stroke. The study was conducted in the Clinic for Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation in Niš, from March 1st till June 30th 2009. Functional status was assessed by using Barthel Index at the admission to the Clinic, one month and three months after the stroke. Four-point scale was used for sitting balance measuring: 4-normal balance, 3 good, 2-fair, 1-poor. To determine the etiology of the stroke computerised tomography was used. Of all 25 patients, 18 (72.0%, 6 men and 12 women) had left haemiparesis and seven (28.0%, 3 men and four women) had right haemiparesis. Twenty-one (84.0%) patients had thromboembolic stroke and 4 (16.0%) had hemorrhage. The mean age of patients was 68.07±9.3 years. A strong positive correlation was found between Barthel Index score and each weekly sitting balance score. At first measuring, the correlation between Barthel Index and sitting balance was r=0.699; (p<0.001), at second r=0.933 (p<0.001) and at trird, r=0.839 (p<0.01).
Multiple evaluations over time identified those patients whose sitting balance improved during rehabilitation in our unit; after grouping the patients into those with normal, improved, and poor sitting balance, we found a significant difference in the Barthel Index scores among these three groups. The group of patients whose sitting balance improved had higher Barthel
Index scores than the group whose sitting balance did not improve.

Keywords:

sitting balance,

rehabilitation,

stroke

References

Amusat N. Assessment of sitting balance of patients with stroke undergoing inpatient rehabilitation. Infor ma Healthcare. 2009;25(2):138–44.

Dean MD, Elizabeth F, Channon FE, Hall JM. Sitting training early after stroke improves sitting ability and quality and carries over to standing up but not to walking: a randomised controlled trial. Australian J Physiother. 2007;53:97–102.

Dam M, Tonin P, Casson S, Ermani M, Pizzolato G, V I, et al. The effects of long-term rehabilitation therapy on poststroke hemiplegic patients. Stroke. 1993;24:1186–91.

Jongbloed L. Prediction of function after stroke: a critical review. Stroke. 1986;17:765–76.

Sandin KJ, Smith BS. The measure of balance in sitting in stroke rehabilitation prognosis. Stroke. 1990;21 82-6.

Anderson TP, Bourestom N, Greenberg FR, Hildyard VG. Predictive factors in stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1974;55:545–53.

Lehmann JF, DeLateur BJ, Fowler RS, Warren CG, Arnhold R, Schertzer G, et al. Stroke rehabilitation: Outcome and prediction. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1975;56:383–9.

Stolov WC. Evaluation of the patient. In: Krusen’s Handbook of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 1982. p. 3.

Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: The Barthel Index. Md Med J. 1965;14:61–5.

10.

Granger CV, Albrecht GL, Hamilton BB. Outcome of comprehensive medical rehabilitation: Measurement by PULSES profile and the Barthel Index. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1979;60:145–54.

11.

Granger CV, Dewis LS, Peters NC, Sherwood CC, Barrett JE. Stroke rehabilitation: Analysis of repea ted Barthel Index measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1979;60:14–7.

12.

Granger CV, Sherwood CC, Greer DS. Functional status measures in a comprehensive stroke care program. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1977;58:555–61.

13.

Wade DT, Skilbeck CE. Hewer RL: Predicting Barthel ADL score at 6 months after an acute stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1983;64:24–8.

14.

Harley C, Boyd JE, Cockburn J, Collin C, Haggard P, JP JPW, et al. Disruption of sitting balance after stroke: influence of spoken output. J Neurol Neuro surg Psychiatry. 2006;77(5):674–6.