Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Gait & Posture journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gaitpost Short communication P 046 – Difference in gait profile index between groups of a gait classification for adult patients with hemiparesis in chronic phase C. Schreiber ⁎ , F. Chantraine, F. Moissenet Centre National de Rééducation Fonctionnelle et de Réadaptation – Rehazenter, Laboratoire d'Analyse du Mouvement et de la Posture, Luxembourg, Luxembourg ARTICLE INFO Keywords: Gait Profile Score Gait Clinical gait analysis Classification Stroke ABSTRACT Classifications are useful in daily clinical practice. To evaluate the objective and quantitative difference between the groups defined by a recently proposed classification, the Gait Profile Score was used on 41 adult patients with chronic post-stroke hemiparesis. All groups demonstrated a score difference higher than the minimal clinically important difference of 1.6°. This classification may thus be relevant as a first approximation of gait capacities. 1. Introduction A recent classification of adult patients with hemiparesis has been proposed [1], on the basis of key abnormalities observed whilst walking. This classification consisted of 3 groups divided in 2 sub- groups. Their definitions were based 1) on observed ankle, knee and hip kinematic abnormalities, and 2) on flexor muscles strength assessed during clinical examination. On the other hand, the Gait Profile Score (GPS) has been proposed in clinical gait analysis (CGA) to quantify the pathology’s impact on gait pattern based on kinematics [2], and its minimal clinically important difference (MCID) has been defined [3]. 2. Research question Based on the GPS, is there an objective and quantitative difference between the groups defined in the classification proposed by [1]? 3. Methods This retrospective study included 41 patients (16 women - 25 men, 50.7 ± 9.3 years, 1.70 ± 0.08 m, and 76.6 ± 16.7 kg) with chronic post-stroke hemiparesis whose underwent a clinical examination fol- lowed by a video analysis and a CGA, as part of their medical follow-up in the Centre National de Rééducation Fonctionnelle et de Réadaptation – Rehazenter, Luxembourg. Each patient was classified by 2 experi- enced evaluators into group I (reduced ankle dorsiflexion), II (stiff-knee gait), or III (reduced hip range of motion associated with weak hip flexor muscle’s strength), and subgroups depending on the presence (sub-group b) or not (sub-group a) of a genu recurvatum. Moreover, GPS was computed for each gait trial based on CGA results. One-way ANOVAs (confidence level 95%) by groups and sub-groups were then performed on GPS. 4. Results Six patients were classified in group I (3 GIa, 3 GIb), 24 in group II (10 GIIa, 14 GIIb), and 11 in group III (4 GIIIa, 7 GIIIb). Means and standard deviations of GPS for groups and subgroups are given in Table 1. An effect of groups and subgroups on GPS was put in evidence by ANOVAs (p-level < 0.001). Moreover, the differences between mean values of GPSI and GPSII, and GPSII and GPSIII were greater than the MCID of 1.6° thus being both clinically significant. Considering the sub- groups, only the difference between mean values of GPSIa and GPSIb was greater than the MCID. 5. Discussion An effect of the classification of stroke patients has been showed for GPS values. Meanwhile, most standard deviations reported for the groups remain large. This questions the border group definitions (i.e. stiff-knee gait, recurvatum, weak hip flexors) and their use in a visual/ clinical assessment. More particularly, the use of isometric muscle https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2018.06.201 ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: celine.schreiber@rehazenter.lu (C. Schreiber). Gait & Posture xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx 0966-6362/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Please cite this article as: Schreiber, C., Gait & Posture (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2018.06.201