Category: Standing Frame Comparison/Product Evaluation

Posted on by

Thirty-Degree Prone Positioning Board for Children with Gastroesophageal Reflux: Suggestion from the Field

date: 1984 Aug;64(8):1240-1.
author:Bubenko S, Flesch P, Kollar C.
publication: Phys Ther
pubmed_ID:6463113

 

 

This excerpt was created in the absence of an abstract.

Gastroesophageal reflux (GER) or chalasia in infants can be defined simply as the regurgitation of gastric contents from the abdominal stomach into the thoracic esophagus.1 Chief among its clinical manifestations is recurrent emesis during and after feedings.1,2 This symptom is present in up to 95 percent of reported cases.2 In addition, any or all of the following disorders may be present: anemia, failure to thrive, nocturnal wheeze or cough, recurrent pneumonia because of aspiration, recurrent bronchitis, near-miss sudden infant death syndrome, and abnormal head positioning (Sandifer syndrome).1,2

An important aspect of the treatment regimen for these patients is positioning during and after feeding. Numerous reports in the literature suggest an upright posture in an infant seat at 45 to 60 degrees after feeding will decrease the incidence of GER.3 Other references suggest a prone posture at 30 degrees after feeding will also decrease the incidence of GER in infants.2,4,5

Posted on by — Leave a comment

A randomized trial evaluation of the Oswestry Standing Frame for patients after stroke.

date: 06/19/2005
author: Bagley P, Hudson M, Forster A, Smith J, Young J.
publication: Clin Rehabil. 2005 Jun;19(4):354-64.
pubmed_ID: 15929503
BACKGROUND: Standing is believed to have benefits in addressing motor and sensory impairments after stroke. One device to facilitate standing for severely disabled patients is the Oswestry Standing Frame. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of the Oswestry Standing Frame for severely disabled stroke patients. DESIGN: A single centre, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: An inpatient stroke rehabilitation unit. SUBJECTS: Patients were recruited if they had a clinical diagnosis of stroke, were medically stable and unable to achieve any score on the Trunk Control Test or unable to stand in mid-line without the assistance of two therapists. INTERVENTION: The intervention (n = 71) and control (n = 69) groups both received usual stroke unit care but the intervention group also received a minimum of 14 consecutive days’ treatment using the standing frame. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the Rivermead Mobility Index (RMI). Secondary measures included the Barthel Index; the Rivermead Motor Assessment; the balanced sitting and sitting to standing components of the Motor Assessment Scale; the Trunk Control Test and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Blind assessment was undertaken at baseline, six weeks, 12 weeks and six months post stroke. Information on resource use was also collected. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between groups in any of the outcome measures or for resource use. Mann-Whitney U-tests for the RMI change from baseline scores to six weeks, 12 weeks and six months post stroke were p = 0.310; p = 0.970 and p = 0.282, respectively. CONCLUSION: Use of the Oswestry Standing Frame did not improve clinical outcome or provide resource savings for this severely disabled patient group.

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Quantifying weight-bearing by children with cerebral palsy while in passive standers.

date: 12/01/2007
author: Herman D, May R, Vogel L, Johnson J, Henderson RC.
publication: Pediatr Phys Ther. 2007 Winter;19(4):283-7.
pubmed_ID: 18004195

PURPOSE: Children who are nonambulatory are placed into standers with the goal of providing benefits from weight-bearing. The purpose of this study was to quantify weight-bearing loads by children with cerebral palsy while in standers. METHODS: Electronic load-measuring footplates were fabricated specifically for this study. Weight-bearing loads were continuously measured in 19 children who were nonambulatory during routine 30-minute standing sessions (3-6 sessions/child, total 110 sessions). RESULTS: Weight-bearing ranged widely (23%-102%) with a mean of 68% of body weight. There was some variation over the course of a session and between different sessions, but more variance was noted between subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Actual weight borne in a stander is quite variable, and in some instances only a fraction of actual body weight. Further studies are required to delineate relevant factors and identify ways to maximize weight-bearing loads while in a stander.

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Technical note–a patient propelled variable-inclination prone stander.

date: 12/01/1983
author: Motloch WM, Brearley MN.
publication: Prosthet Orthot Int. 1983 Dec;7(3):176-7.
pubmed_ID: 6647014

A self-propelled mobile standing device is described with the facility of patient-operated inclination of the support platform, enabling objects on the floor to be reached. The device is provided with a removable tray at the level of the occupant’s chest.