| Literature DB >> 26052508 |
Amin Kordi Yoosefinejad1, Azadeh Shadmehr2, Ghloamreza Olyaei2, Saeed Talebian2, Hossein Bagheri2, Mohammad Reza Mohajeri-Tehrani3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with diabetes type 2 suffer from many complications such as peripheral neuropathy (PN). PN impairs postural stability and muscle strength. Therapeutic exercise may improve functional abilities of diabetic patients but they are unwilling to participate in exercise programs. Whole Body vibration (WBV) is a new somatosensory stimulation which is easy to use and time-efficient. The effects of WBV on balance and strength of diabetic patients had not been studied; therefore the aim of this study was to assess the effects of WBV in type 2 diabetes patients.Entities:
Keywords: Balance; Muscle strength; Neuropathy; TUGT; Type 2 diabetes; Whole body vibration
Year: 2015 PMID: 26052508 PMCID: PMC4456782 DOI: 10.1186/s40200-015-0173-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Diabetes Metab Disord ISSN: 2251-6581
Fig. 1Consort Flow diagram of the participants
Demographic data of WBV intervention and control groups
| Variable | WBV group ( | Control group ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| age (years) | 1.8 ± 57 | 57 ± 1.5 | 0.86 |
| gender (F/M) | 6/4 | 6/4 | --- |
| Height (cm) | 164 ± 3.3 | 158 ± 3.0 | 0.22 |
| Weight (Kg) | 75 ± 2.0 | 72 ± 3.5 | 0.43 |
| BMI (kg.m−2) | 28.5 ± 1.0 | 28.9 ± 1.0 | 0.77 |
| duration of diabetes (years) | 11 ± 1.6 | 12 ± 2.0 | 0.73 |
| duration of neuropathy (months) | 29 ± 6.5 | 22 ± 8.0 | 0.33 |
Data are mean ± SE
Different positions maintained on plate form to evaluate balance
| Position | Eyes | Foam | Standing on one/two legs |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | open | No | two legs |
| 2 | open | No | one leg |
| 3 | open | Yes | two legs |
| 4 | open | Yes | one legs |
| 5 | closed | No | two legs |
| 6 | closed | No | one leg |
| 7 | closed | Yes | two legs |
| 8 | closed | Yes | one leg |
Baseline data of all measured variables in WBV intervention and control groups
| Variable | WBV intervention group ( | Control group ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Quadriceps strength (kg) | 12.4 ± 2.4 | 12.5 ± 2.0 | 0.96 |
| Tibialis Anterior strength (kg) | 6.3 ± 0.6 | 7 ± 1.0 | 0.59 |
| General strength (kg) | 122 ± 22 | 113 ± 24 | 0.76 |
| TUGT (sec) | 9.3 ± 0.8 | 9.15 ± 0.4 | 0.84 |
| UST (sec) | 2.8 ± 0.2 | 3.2 ± 0.6 | 0.48 |
| ONF-Velocity (cm.s−1) | 4.5 ± 0.7 | 4 ± 0.19 | 0.4 |
| OF- Velocity (cm.s−1) | 5.1 ± 1.2 | 3.7 ± 0.09 | 0.32 |
| CNF-Velocity (cm.s−1) | 5.4 ± 1.5 | 4 ± 0.19 | 0.38 |
| CF-Velocity (cm.s−1) | 7.3 ± 1.7 | 4 ± 0.19 | 0.09 |
Data are mean ± SE
TUGT, Timed Up & Go Test; UST, Unilateral Stance Test; ONF, Open eye No foam; OF, Open eye with foam; CNF, Closed eye No foam; CF, Closed eye with Foam
ICC of the outcomes
| Parameter |
| ICC |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| mean velocity (ONF) | 20.42 | 0.95 | <0.001* |
| mean velocity (CNF) | 23.45 | 0.95 | <0.001* |
| mean velocity (OF) | 42.78 | 0.97 | <0.001* |
| mean velocity (CF) | 50.42 | 0.98 | <0.001* |
| quadriceps strength | 10.07 | 0.89 | <0.001* |
| tibialis anterior strength | 15.00 | 1.23 | <0.001* |
| general strength | 50.30 | 0.90 | <0.001* |
| TUGT | 5.22 | 0.80 | <0.001* |
| UST | 4.30 | 0.76 | <0.001* |
Fig. 2Interaction between time and group effects of mean velocity when Participants kept eyes closed and stood on the foam. Pattern of changes of mean velocity is different pre- and post intervention