Comparative kinematic and electromyographic assessment of clinician- and device-assisted sit-to-stand transfers in patients with stroke

Judith M. Burnfield, Bernadette McCrory, Yu Shu, Thad W. Buster, Adam P. Taylor, Amy J. Goldman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

20 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background. Workplace injuries from patient handling are prevalent. With the adoption of no-lift policies, sit-to-stand transfer devices have emerged as one tool to combat injuries. However, the therapeutic value associated with sit-to-stand transfers with the use of an assistive apparatus cannot be determined due to a lack of evidence-based data. Objective. The aim of this study was to compare clinician-assisted, device-assisted, and the combination of clinician- and device-assisted sit-to-stand transfers in individuals who recently had a stroke. Design. This cross-sectional, controlled laboratory study used a repeated-measures design. Methods. The duration, joint kinematics, and muscle activity of 4 sit-to-stand transfer conditions were compared for 10 patients with stroke. Each patient performed 4 randomized sit-to-stand transfer conditions: clinician-assisted, device-assisted with no patient effort, device-assisted with the patient's best effort, and device- and clinician-assisted. Results. Device-assisted transfers took nearly twice as long as clinician-assisted transfers. Hip and knee joint movement patterns were similar across all conditions. Forward trunk flexion was lacking and ankle motion was restrained during device-assisted transfers. Encouragement and guidance from the clinician during device-assisted transfers led to increased lower extremity muscle activation levels. Limitations. One lifting device and one clinician were evaluated. Clinician effort could not be controlled. Conclusions. Lack of forward trunk flexion and restrained ankle movement during device-assisted transfers may dissuade clinicians from selecting this device for use as a dedicated rehabilitation tool. However, with clinician encouragement, muscle activation increased, which suggests that it is possible to safely practice transfers while challenging key leg muscles essential for standing. Future sit-to-stand devices should promote safety for the patient and clinician and encourage a movement pattern that more closely mimics normal sit-to-stand biomechanics.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1331-1341
Number of pages11
JournalPhysical therapy
Volume93
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2013

Fingerprint

Patient Transfer
Biomechanical Phenomena
Stroke
Equipment and Supplies
Muscles
Ankle
Moving and Lifting Patients
Hip Joint
Wounds and Injuries
Patient Safety
Knee Joint
Workplace
Lower Extremity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation

Cite this

Comparative kinematic and electromyographic assessment of clinician- and device-assisted sit-to-stand transfers in patients with stroke. / Burnfield, Judith M.; McCrory, Bernadette; Shu, Yu; Buster, Thad W.; Taylor, Adam P.; Goldman, Amy J.

In: Physical therapy, Vol. 93, No. 10, 01.10.2013, p. 1331-1341.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Burnfield, Judith M. ; McCrory, Bernadette ; Shu, Yu ; Buster, Thad W. ; Taylor, Adam P. ; Goldman, Amy J. / Comparative kinematic and electromyographic assessment of clinician- and device-assisted sit-to-stand transfers in patients with stroke. In: Physical therapy. 2013 ; Vol. 93, No. 10. pp. 1331-1341.
@article{c0b4328e7b4c4bd99cdcf6fc116ad238,
title = "Comparative kinematic and electromyographic assessment of clinician- and device-assisted sit-to-stand transfers in patients with stroke",
abstract = "Background. Workplace injuries from patient handling are prevalent. With the adoption of no-lift policies, sit-to-stand transfer devices have emerged as one tool to combat injuries. However, the therapeutic value associated with sit-to-stand transfers with the use of an assistive apparatus cannot be determined due to a lack of evidence-based data. Objective. The aim of this study was to compare clinician-assisted, device-assisted, and the combination of clinician- and device-assisted sit-to-stand transfers in individuals who recently had a stroke. Design. This cross-sectional, controlled laboratory study used a repeated-measures design. Methods. The duration, joint kinematics, and muscle activity of 4 sit-to-stand transfer conditions were compared for 10 patients with stroke. Each patient performed 4 randomized sit-to-stand transfer conditions: clinician-assisted, device-assisted with no patient effort, device-assisted with the patient's best effort, and device- and clinician-assisted. Results. Device-assisted transfers took nearly twice as long as clinician-assisted transfers. Hip and knee joint movement patterns were similar across all conditions. Forward trunk flexion was lacking and ankle motion was restrained during device-assisted transfers. Encouragement and guidance from the clinician during device-assisted transfers led to increased lower extremity muscle activation levels. Limitations. One lifting device and one clinician were evaluated. Clinician effort could not be controlled. Conclusions. Lack of forward trunk flexion and restrained ankle movement during device-assisted transfers may dissuade clinicians from selecting this device for use as a dedicated rehabilitation tool. However, with clinician encouragement, muscle activation increased, which suggests that it is possible to safely practice transfers while challenging key leg muscles essential for standing. Future sit-to-stand devices should promote safety for the patient and clinician and encourage a movement pattern that more closely mimics normal sit-to-stand biomechanics.",
author = "Burnfield, {Judith M.} and Bernadette McCrory and Yu Shu and Buster, {Thad W.} and Taylor, {Adam P.} and Goldman, {Amy J.}",
year = "2013",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2522/ptj.20120500",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "93",
pages = "1331--1341",
journal = "Physical Therapy",
issn = "0031-9023",
publisher = "American Physical Therapy Association",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative kinematic and electromyographic assessment of clinician- and device-assisted sit-to-stand transfers in patients with stroke

AU - Burnfield, Judith M.

AU - McCrory, Bernadette

AU - Shu, Yu

AU - Buster, Thad W.

AU - Taylor, Adam P.

AU - Goldman, Amy J.

PY - 2013/10/1

Y1 - 2013/10/1

N2 - Background. Workplace injuries from patient handling are prevalent. With the adoption of no-lift policies, sit-to-stand transfer devices have emerged as one tool to combat injuries. However, the therapeutic value associated with sit-to-stand transfers with the use of an assistive apparatus cannot be determined due to a lack of evidence-based data. Objective. The aim of this study was to compare clinician-assisted, device-assisted, and the combination of clinician- and device-assisted sit-to-stand transfers in individuals who recently had a stroke. Design. This cross-sectional, controlled laboratory study used a repeated-measures design. Methods. The duration, joint kinematics, and muscle activity of 4 sit-to-stand transfer conditions were compared for 10 patients with stroke. Each patient performed 4 randomized sit-to-stand transfer conditions: clinician-assisted, device-assisted with no patient effort, device-assisted with the patient's best effort, and device- and clinician-assisted. Results. Device-assisted transfers took nearly twice as long as clinician-assisted transfers. Hip and knee joint movement patterns were similar across all conditions. Forward trunk flexion was lacking and ankle motion was restrained during device-assisted transfers. Encouragement and guidance from the clinician during device-assisted transfers led to increased lower extremity muscle activation levels. Limitations. One lifting device and one clinician were evaluated. Clinician effort could not be controlled. Conclusions. Lack of forward trunk flexion and restrained ankle movement during device-assisted transfers may dissuade clinicians from selecting this device for use as a dedicated rehabilitation tool. However, with clinician encouragement, muscle activation increased, which suggests that it is possible to safely practice transfers while challenging key leg muscles essential for standing. Future sit-to-stand devices should promote safety for the patient and clinician and encourage a movement pattern that more closely mimics normal sit-to-stand biomechanics.

AB - Background. Workplace injuries from patient handling are prevalent. With the adoption of no-lift policies, sit-to-stand transfer devices have emerged as one tool to combat injuries. However, the therapeutic value associated with sit-to-stand transfers with the use of an assistive apparatus cannot be determined due to a lack of evidence-based data. Objective. The aim of this study was to compare clinician-assisted, device-assisted, and the combination of clinician- and device-assisted sit-to-stand transfers in individuals who recently had a stroke. Design. This cross-sectional, controlled laboratory study used a repeated-measures design. Methods. The duration, joint kinematics, and muscle activity of 4 sit-to-stand transfer conditions were compared for 10 patients with stroke. Each patient performed 4 randomized sit-to-stand transfer conditions: clinician-assisted, device-assisted with no patient effort, device-assisted with the patient's best effort, and device- and clinician-assisted. Results. Device-assisted transfers took nearly twice as long as clinician-assisted transfers. Hip and knee joint movement patterns were similar across all conditions. Forward trunk flexion was lacking and ankle motion was restrained during device-assisted transfers. Encouragement and guidance from the clinician during device-assisted transfers led to increased lower extremity muscle activation levels. Limitations. One lifting device and one clinician were evaluated. Clinician effort could not be controlled. Conclusions. Lack of forward trunk flexion and restrained ankle movement during device-assisted transfers may dissuade clinicians from selecting this device for use as a dedicated rehabilitation tool. However, with clinician encouragement, muscle activation increased, which suggests that it is possible to safely practice transfers while challenging key leg muscles essential for standing. Future sit-to-stand devices should promote safety for the patient and clinician and encourage a movement pattern that more closely mimics normal sit-to-stand biomechanics.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84885055064&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84885055064&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2522/ptj.20120500

DO - 10.2522/ptj.20120500

M3 - Article

C2 - 23641027

AN - SCOPUS:84885055064

VL - 93

SP - 1331

EP - 1341

JO - Physical Therapy

JF - Physical Therapy

SN - 0031-9023

IS - 10

ER -