Literature DB >> 22961424

Physical performance tests are useful for evaluating and monitoring the severity of locomotive syndrome.

Akio Muramoto1, Shiro Imagama, Zenya Ito, Kenichi Hirano, Naoki Ishiguro, Yukiharu Hasegawa.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The concept of the locomotive syndrome (LS), first proposed in Japan in 2007, has become widely accepted, and the 25-question Geriatric Locomotive Function Scale (GLFS-25), a quantitative, evidence-based diagnostic tool for LS, has been developed. However, the association between the GLFS-25 score and the outcome of physical capacity tests has never been investigated. Furthermore, which physical tests are good indices for evaluating and monitoring the severity of locomotive syndrome have not been identified. In addition, the impact of knee and low back pain on locomotive syndrome is unclear. The purpose of this study is to confirm the validity of GLFS-25 by demonstrating its significant correlation with the outcome of physical function tests and to determine which tests are good indicators for monitoring the severity of LS. The secondary aim of the project is to investigate how much influence knee and low back pain may have on the LS of the middle-aged and elderly.
METHODS: A total of 358 subjects were drawn from a general health checkup in a rural area of Japan. We measured back muscle strength, grip strength, one-leg standing time with eyes open, 10-m gait time, timed up-and-go test, maximum stride, functional reach, height, weight, % body fat and bone mineral density, and we obtained a visual analog scale of low back pain and knee pain. The degree of the locomotive syndrome was evaluated using the GLFS-25. Associations of all the variables with the GLFS-25 score were analyzed using both univariate and multivariate analyses.
RESULTS: The GLFS-25 score was significantly higher in females than in males in both the total and in the age older than 60 years groups. The GLFS-25 score showed a significant positive correlation with age (r = 0.360), knee pain (r = 0.576), low back pain (r = 0.526), timed up-and-go test (r = 0.688) and 10-m gait time (r = 0.634), and it showed a significant negative correlation with one-leg standing time with eyes open (r = -0.458), maximum stride (r = -0.408), functional reach test (r = -0.380), back muscle strength (r = -0.364) and grip strength (r = -0.280). Multiple regression analysis indicated that knee pain (β = 0.282), low back pain (β = 0.304), one-leg standing time (β = -0.116), timed up-and-go test (β = -0.319) and back muscle strength (β = -0.090) were significantly associated with the GLFS-25 score. Grip strength (β = -0.99) was a good substitute for back muscle strength in the multiple regression analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: We confirmed the validity of GLFS-25 by demonstrating a significant correlation and association of its score with the outcome of a series of functional performance tests. One-leg standing time with eyes open, timed up-and-go test and grip strength proved to be easy, reliable and safe performance tests to evaluate and monitor an individual's severity of LS as a complement to the GLFS-25. We also proved that knee and low back pain significantly impact the degree of LS.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22961424     DOI: 10.1007/s00776-012-0283-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop Sci        ISSN: 0949-2658            Impact factor:   1.601


  23 in total

1.  Reliability of the Kinematic Steadiness Index during one-leg standing in subjects with recurrent low back pain.

Authors:  Paul S Sung; Pamela Danial; Dongchul C Lee
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-10-04       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  Managing sarcopenia and its related-fractures to improve quality of life in geriatric populations.

Authors:  Tetsuro Hida; Atsushi Harada; Shiro Imagama; Naoki Ishiguro
Journal:  Aging Dis       Date:  2013-11-26       Impact factor: 6.745

3.  Relationship between physician-judged functioning level and self-reported disabilities in elderly people with locomotive disorders.

Authors:  Tsutomu Iwaya; Tokuhide Doi; Atsushi Seichi; Yuichi Hoshino; Toru Ogata; Masami Akai
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2016-07-28       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Predictors of Bone Status by Quantitative Ultrasound Measurements in a Mountain Village in Japan.

Authors:  Tsuyoshi Tajika; Atsushi Yamamoto; Takashi Ohsawa; Noboru Oya; Haku Iizuka; Kenji Takagishi
Journal:  Open Orthop J       Date:  2016-11-17

5.  Characteristics of disability in activity of daily living in elderly people associated with locomotive disorders.

Authors:  Tsutomu Iwaya; Tokuhide Doi; Atsushi Seichi; Yuichi Hoshino; Toru Ogata; Masami Akai
Journal:  BMC Geriatr       Date:  2017-07-26       Impact factor: 3.921

6.  Association between subjective oral dysfunction and locomotive syndrome in community-dwelling older adults.

Authors:  Misa Nakamura; Masakazu Imaoka; Hidetoshi Nakao; Mitsumasa Hida; Fumie Tazaki; Ryota Imai; Hirotoshi Utsunomiya; Hiroshi Hashizume
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-06-15       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 7.  Locomotive Syndrome: Definition and Management.

Authors:  Kozo Nakamura; Toru Ogata
Journal:  Clin Rev Bone Miner Metab       Date:  2016-05-25

Review 8.  Locomotive Syndrome: Operational Definition Based on a Questionnaire, and Exercise Interventions on Mobility Dysfunction in Elderly People.

Authors:  M Akai; T Doi; A Seichi; Y Okuma; T Ogata; T Iwaya
Journal:  Clin Rev Bone Miner Metab       Date:  2016-06-03

9.  Locomotive syndrome is associated with body composition and cardiometabolic disorders in elderly Japanese women.

Authors:  Misa Nakamura; Yosuke Kobashi; Hiroshi Hashizume; Hiroyuki Oka; Ryohei Kono; Sachiko Nomura; Akihiro Maeno; Munehito Yoshida; Hirotoshi Utsunomiya
Journal:  BMC Geriatr       Date:  2016-09-27       Impact factor: 3.921

10.  Cognitive impairment associated with locomotive syndrome in community-dwelling elderly women in Japan.

Authors:  Misa Nakamura; Fumie Tazaki; Kazuki Nomura; Taeko Takano; Masashi Hashimoto; Hiroshi Hashizume; Ichiro Kamei
Journal:  Clin Interv Aging       Date:  2017-09-12       Impact factor: 4.458

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.