PURPOSE: The aim of the research was to determine how knee extensor strength asymmetry influences gait asymmetry and variability because these gait parameters have been related to mobility and falls in older adults. METHODS: Strength of the knee extensors was measured in 24 older women (65-80 yr). Subjects were separated into symmetrical strength (SS, n = 13) and asymmetrical strength (SA, n = 11) groups using an asymmetry cutoff of 20%. Subjects walked at a standard speed of 0.8 m·s and at maximal speed on an instrumented treadmill while kinetic and spatiotemporal gait variables were measured. Gait and strength asymmetry were calculated as the percentage difference between legs and gait variability as the coefficient of variation over 20 sequential steps. RESULTS: SA had greater strength asymmetry (27.4% ± 5.5%) than SS (11.7% ± 5.4%, P < 0.001). Averaged across speeds, SA had greater single- (7.1% vs. 2.5%) and double-limb support time asymmetry (7.0% vs. 4.3%) than SS and greater single-limb support time variability (9.7% vs. 6.6%, all P < 0.05). Group × speed interactions occurred for weight acceptance force variability (P = 0.02) and weight acceptance force asymmetry (P = 0.017) with greater variability at the maximal speed in SA (5.0% ± 2.4% vs. 3.7% ± 1.2%) and greater asymmetry at the maximal speed in SA (6.4% ± 5.3% vs. 2.5% ± 2.3%). CONCLUSION: Gait variability and asymmetry are greater in older women with strength asymmetry and increase when they walk near their maximal capacities. The maintenance of strength symmetry, or development of symmetry through unilateral exercise, may be beneficial in reducing gait asymmetry, gait variability, and fall risk in older adults.
PURPOSE: The aim of the research was to determine how knee extensor strength asymmetry influences gait asymmetry and variability because these gait parameters have been related to mobility and falls in older adults. METHODS: Strength of the knee extensors was measured in 24 older women (65-80 yr). Subjects were separated into symmetrical strength (SS, n = 13) and asymmetrical strength (SA, n = 11) groups using an asymmetry cutoff of 20%. Subjects walked at a standard speed of 0.8 m·s and at maximal speed on an instrumented treadmill while kinetic and spatiotemporal gait variables were measured. Gait and strength asymmetry were calculated as the percentage difference between legs and gait variability as the coefficient of variation over 20 sequential steps. RESULTS:SA had greater strength asymmetry (27.4% ± 5.5%) than SS (11.7% ± 5.4%, P < 0.001). Averaged across speeds, SA had greater single- (7.1% vs. 2.5%) and double-limb support time asymmetry (7.0% vs. 4.3%) than SS and greater single-limb support time variability (9.7% vs. 6.6%, all P < 0.05). Group × speed interactions occurred for weight acceptance force variability (P = 0.02) and weight acceptance force asymmetry (P = 0.017) with greater variability at the maximal speed in SA (5.0% ± 2.4% vs. 3.7% ± 1.2%) and greater asymmetry at the maximal speed in SA (6.4% ± 5.3% vs. 2.5% ± 2.3%). CONCLUSION: Gait variability and asymmetry are greater in older women with strength asymmetry and increase when they walk near their maximal capacities. The maintenance of strength symmetry, or development of symmetry through unilateral exercise, may be beneficial in reducing gait asymmetry, gait variability, and fall risk in older adults.
Authors: Robert J Carabello; Kieran F Reid; David J Clark; Edward M Phillips; Roger A Fielding Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2009-11-25 Impact factor: 3.636
Authors: Mark C Perry; Serena F Carville; I Christopher H Smith; Olga M Rutherford; Di J Newham Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2006-07-18 Impact factor: 3.346
Authors: Dana L Judd; Douglas A Dennis; Abbey C Thomas; Pamela Wolfe; Michael R Dayton; Jennifer E Stevens-Lapsley Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: M Owen Papuga; Christopher A Beck; Stephen L Kates; Edward M Schwarz; Michael D Maloney Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2014-02-14 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Amy O Parkinson; Charlotte L Apps; John G Morris; Cleveland T Barnett; Martin G C Lewis Journal: J Sports Sci Med Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 2.988
Authors: Silvia Stagi; Alessia Moroni; Margherita Micheletti Cremasco; Elisabetta Marini Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 3.390