BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanics of recumbent cycling between adolescents with cerebral palsy (CP) classified at Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) levels III and IV and adolescents with typical development (TD). SUBJECTS: Twenty subjects, ages (X+/-SD) 15.2+/-1.6 years (10 with TD, 10 with CP), participated. METHODS: Lower-extremity kinematics and muscle activity were measured at 30 and 60 rpm while subjects pedaled on a recumbent cycle. Energy expenditure and perceived exertion were measured during a 5-minute test, and efficiency was calculated. Noncircular data were analyzed with analyses of variance. Circular data were analyzed using circular t tests. RESULTS: Differences were found between groups for joint kinematics for all motions. Subjects with CP displayed earlier onsets and later offsets of muscle activity, increased co-contraction of agonist and antagonist muscles, and decreased efficiency compared with subjects with TD. There were no differences in perceived exertion. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Differences in cycling biomechanics between children with CP and children with TD may be due to decreased strength and motor control in the children with CP.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanics of recumbent cycling between adolescents with cerebral palsy (CP) classified at Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) levels III and IV and adolescents with typical development (TD). SUBJECTS: Twenty subjects, ages (X+/-SD) 15.2+/-1.6 years (10 with TD, 10 with CP), participated. METHODS: Lower-extremity kinematics and muscle activity were measured at 30 and 60 rpm while subjects pedaled on a recumbent cycle. Energy expenditure and perceived exertion were measured during a 5-minute test, and efficiency was calculated. Noncircular data were analyzed with analyses of variance. Circular data were analyzed using circular t tests. RESULTS: Differences were found between groups for joint kinematics for all motions. Subjects with CP displayed earlier onsets and later offsets of muscle activity, increased co-contraction of agonist and antagonist muscles, and decreased efficiency compared with subjects with TD. There were no differences in perceived exertion. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Differences in cycling biomechanics between children with CP and children with TD may be due to decreased strength and motor control in the children with CP.
Authors: Karin A Pfeiffer; James M Pivarnik; Christopher J Womack; Mathew J Reeves; Robert M Malina Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: R J Robertson; F L Goss; N F Boer; J A Peoples; A J Foreman; I M Dabayebeh; N B Millich; G Balasekaran; S E Riechman; J D Gallagher; T Thompkins Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Laura A Prosser; Christopher J Stanley; Tracy L Norman; Hyung S Park; Diane L Damiano Journal: Gait Posture Date: 2011-01-06 Impact factor: 2.840
Authors: Richard T Lauer; Therese E Johnston; Brian T Smith; Samuel C K Lee Journal: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) Date: 2007-12-20 Impact factor: 2.063