Marialuisa Gandolfi1, Daniele Munari1, Christian Geroin1, Alberto Gajofatto2, Maria Donata Benedetti3, Alessandro Midiri4, Fontana Carla4, Alessandro Picelli1, Andreas Waldner5, Nicola Smania6. 1. Neuromotor and Cognitive Rehabilitation Research Centre (CRRNC), Italy/ Department of Neurological and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, Italy. 2. Department of Neurological and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, Italy. 3. USF Malattie Demielinizzanti, Neurologia dU Borgo Roma, AOUI Verona, Italy. 4. Department of Neurological and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, Italy/ School of Specialization in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Verona, Italy. 5. Department of Neurological Rehabilitation, Private Hospital Villa Melitta, Italy. 6. Neuromotor and Cognitive Rehabilitation Research Centre (CRRNC), Italy/ Department of Neurological and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, Italy nicola.smania@univr.it.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Impaired sensory integration contributes to balance disorders in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to compare the effects of sensory integration balance training against conventional rehabilitation on balance disorders, the level of balance confidence perceived, quality of life, fatigue, frequency of falls, and sensory integration processing on a large sample of patients with MS. METHODS: This single-blind, randomized, controlled trial involved 80 outpatients with MS (EDSS: 1.5-6.0) and subjective symptoms of balance disorders. The experimental group (n = 39) received specific training to improve central integration of afferent sensory inputs; the control group (n = 41) received conventional rehabilitation (15 treatment sessions of 50 minutes each). Before, after treatment, and at one month post-treatment, patients were evaluated by a blinded rater using the Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC), Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life-54, Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), number of falls and the Sensory Organization Balance Test (SOT). RESULTS: The experimental training program produced greater improvements than the control group training on the BBS (p < 0.001), the FSS (p < 0.002), number of falls (p = 0.002) and SOT (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS:Specific training to improve central integration of afferent sensory inputs may ameliorate balance disorders in patients with MS. Clinical Trial Registration (NCT01040117).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Impaired sensory integration contributes to balance disorders in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to compare the effects of sensory integration balance training against conventional rehabilitation on balance disorders, the level of balance confidence perceived, quality of life, fatigue, frequency of falls, and sensory integration processing on a large sample of patients with MS. METHODS: This single-blind, randomized, controlled trial involved 80 outpatients with MS (EDSS: 1.5-6.0) and subjective symptoms of balance disorders. The experimental group (n = 39) received specific training to improve central integration of afferent sensory inputs; the control group (n = 41) received conventional rehabilitation (15 treatment sessions of 50 minutes each). Before, after treatment, and at one month post-treatment, patients were evaluated by a blinded rater using the Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC), Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life-54, Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), number of falls and the Sensory Organization Balance Test (SOT). RESULTS: The experimental training program produced greater improvements than the control group training on the BBS (p < 0.001), the FSS (p < 0.002), number of falls (p = 0.002) and SOT (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Specific training to improve central integration of afferent sensory inputs may ameliorate balance disorders in patients with MS. Clinical Trial Registration (NCT01040117).
Authors: Riccardo Iandolo; Marta Carè; Valay A Shah; Simona Schiavi; Giulia Bommarito; Giacomo Boffa; Psiche Giannoni; Matilde Inglese; Leigh Ann Mrotek; Robert A Scheidt; Maura Casadio Journal: Somatosens Mot Res Date: 2019-07-03 Impact factor: 1.111
Authors: Luis Andreu-Caravaca; Domingo J Ramos-Campo; Pedro Manonelles; Linda H Chung; Salvador Ramallo; Jacobo Á Rubio-Arias Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-04-25 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Aikaterini Christogianni; Richard Bibb; Scott L Davis; Ollie Jay; Michael Barnett; Nikos Evangelou; Davide Filingeri Journal: Temperature (Austin) Date: 2018-09-05
Authors: Graham D Cochrane; Jennifer B Christy; Brian M Sandroff; Robert W Motl Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2021-09-24 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Sara Hayes; Rose Galvin; Catriona Kennedy; Marcia Finlayson; Christopher McGuigan; Cathal D Walsh; Susan Coote Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-11-28