F Sibella1, M Galli, M Romei, A Montesano, M Crivellini. 1. Department of Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, p.zza Leonardo da Vinci 32, 20133, Milano, Italy. sibella@biomed.polimi.it
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Main purpose of this study was to develop a biomechanical model for the analysis of sit-to-stand movement in normal and obese subjects. DESIGN: A biomechanical model describing sit-to-stand was developed using kinetic and kinematic experimental data. Trunk flexion, feet movement, knee and hip joint torques were assumed as sensible indexes to discriminate between normal and obese subjects. BACKGROUND: Sit-to-stand is a functional task that may become difficult for certain patients. The analysis of its execution provides useful biomechanical information on the motor ability of selected subjects. METHODS: Sit-to-stand was recorded using an optoelectronic system and a force platform in 40 obese patients and 10 normal subjects. A biomechanical model was developed using inverse dynamics equations. RESULTS: Kinematic and kinetic indexes evidenced differences in motion strategy between normal and obese subjects. Obese subjects rise from the chair limiting trunk flexion (mean value: 73.1 degrees ) and moving their feet backwards from initial position (mean deviation: 50 mm). Normal subjects, instead, show a higher trunk flexion (mean value: 49.2 degrees, a lower angular value between trunk and the horizontal means increased flexion) and fixed feet position (mean deviation: 5 mm). As for kinetics, obese patients show knee joint torque higher than hip torque (maximum knee torque: 0.75 Nm/kg; maximum hip torque: 0.59 Nm/kg), while normal subjects show opposite behaviour (maximum knee torque: 0.38 Nm/kg; maximum hip torque: 0.98 Nm/kg). RELEVANCE: We found differences in motion strategy between normal and obese subjects performing sit-to-stand movement, which may be used to plan and evaluate rehabilitative treatments.
OBJECTIVE: Main purpose of this study was to develop a biomechanical model for the analysis of sit-to-stand movement in normal and obese subjects. DESIGN: A biomechanical model describing sit-to-stand was developed using kinetic and kinematic experimental data. Trunk flexion, feet movement, knee and hip joint torques were assumed as sensible indexes to discriminate between normal and obese subjects. BACKGROUND: Sit-to-stand is a functional task that may become difficult for certain patients. The analysis of its execution provides useful biomechanical information on the motor ability of selected subjects. METHODS: Sit-to-stand was recorded using an optoelectronic system and a force platform in 40 obesepatients and 10 normal subjects. A biomechanical model was developed using inverse dynamics equations. RESULTS: Kinematic and kinetic indexes evidenced differences in motion strategy between normal and obese subjects. Obese subjects rise from the chair limiting trunk flexion (mean value: 73.1 degrees ) and moving their feet backwards from initial position (mean deviation: 50 mm). Normal subjects, instead, show a higher trunk flexion (mean value: 49.2 degrees, a lower angular value between trunk and the horizontal means increased flexion) and fixed feet position (mean deviation: 5 mm). As for kinetics, obesepatients show knee joint torque higher than hip torque (maximum knee torque: 0.75 Nm/kg; maximum hip torque: 0.59 Nm/kg), while normal subjects show opposite behaviour (maximum knee torque: 0.38 Nm/kg; maximum hip torque: 0.98 Nm/kg). RELEVANCE: We found differences in motion strategy between normal and obese subjects performing sit-to-stand movement, which may be used to plan and evaluate rehabilitative treatments.
Authors: Jacob M Elkins; Matej Daniel; Douglas R Pedersen; Bhupinder Singh; H John Yack; John J Callaghan; Thomas D Brown Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2012-08-21 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Heather K Vincent; Amanda N Seay; Cindy Montero; Bryan P Conrad; Robert W Hurley; Kevin R Vincent Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 2.159
Authors: Tim Mitchell; Peter B O'Sullivan; Angus F Burnett; Leon Straker; Anne Smith Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2008-11-18 Impact factor: 2.362