| Literature DB >> 26981283 |
Michael Smaerup1, Uffe Laessoe2, Eric Grönvall3, Jens-Jacob Henriksen4, Else Marie Damsgaard1.
Abstract
Objective. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether elderly patients with vestibular dysfunction are able to preserve physical functional level, reduction in dizziness, and the patient's quality of life when assistive computer technology is used in comparison with printed instructions. Materials and Methods. Single-blind, randomized, controlled follow-up study. Fifty-seven elderly patients with chronic dizziness were randomly assigned to a computer-assisted home exercise program or to home exercises as described in printed instructions and followed for tree month after discharge from an outpatient clinic. Results. Both groups had maintained their high functional levels three months after finishing the outpatient rehabilitation. No statistically significant difference was found in outcome scores between the two groups. In spite of moderate compliance levels, the patients maintained their high functional level indicating that the elderly should not necessarily exercise for the first three months after termination of the training in the outpatient clinic. Conclusion. Elderly vestibular dysfunction patients exercising at home seem to maintain their functional level, level of dizziness, and quality of life three months following discharge from hospital. In this specific setup, no greater effect was found by introducing a computer-assisted training program, when compared to standard home training guided by printed instructions. This trial is registered with NCT01344408.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26981283 PMCID: PMC4766343 DOI: 10.1155/2016/7026317
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Rehabil Res Pract ISSN: 2090-2867
Figure 1Flow chart.
Participant characteristics at baseline, that is, termination of supervised training in outpatient clinic.
| Variables | Mitii group ( | Control group ( |
|---|---|---|
| Women, | 17 (57) | 19 (63) |
| Age | 76.39 ± 7.63 | 78.93 ± 6.58 |
| Duration of dizziness, months | 61.50 ± 52.25 | 69.66 ± 47.38 |
| Type of vestibular dysfunction, | ||
| Peripheral | 2 (7) | 2 (7) |
| Mixed | 4 (14) | 6 (21) |
| Central | 22 (79) | 21 (72) |
| One-leg stand test (s) | 11.90 ± 10.61 | 11.11 ± 10.66 |
| Dynamic Gait Index (points) | 17.68 ± 4.20 | 16.41 ± 3.89 |
| Dizziness Handicap Inventory (points) | 31.36 ± 19.78 | 35.27 ± 18.08 |
| Motion Sensitivity Test (points) | 15.43 ± 15.72 | 18.07 ± 22.00 |
| Visual Analogue Scale (mm) | 29.89 ± 2.06 | 30.17 ± 19.38 |
| Chair Stand Test (rep) | 13.00 ± 4.50 | 12.17 ± 2.88 |
| Short Form-12 Physical Composite Score (points) | 41.92 ± 13.12 | 38.91 ± 11.61 |
| Short Form-12 Mental Composite Score (points) | 56.05 ± 8.57 | 53.83 ± 9.45 |
Values with a plus/minus sign are means ± SD.
aThe intervention with a computerized training program.
Changes during intervention perioda.
| Measureb | Mitii groupc | Control group | Difference between groups | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Change during intervention period |
| Change during intervention period |
| Difference intervention period |
| |
| One-leg stand test (s) | 0.41 (−1.34 to 2.15) | 0.54 | 1.66 (−0.61 to 3.93) | 0.18 | −1.26 (−4.07 to 1.56) | 0.38 |
|
| ||||||
| Dynamic Gait Index (points) | 0.07 (−0.79 to 0.93) | 0.86 | −0.28 (−1.06 to 0.51) | 0.48 | −0.35 (−1.48 to 0.78) | 0.54 |
|
| ||||||
| Dizziness Handicap Inventory (points) | 1.64 (−1.76 to 5.05) | 0.33 | 0.97 (−3.78 to 5.71) | 0.68 | −0.67 (−6.43 to 5.07) | 0.81 |
|
| ||||||
| Motion Sensitivity Test (points) | 2.11 (−1.79 to 6.00) | 0.15 | −1.52 (−8.50 to 5.47) | 0.41 | −0.26 (−4.20 to 3.68) | 0.12 |
|
| ||||||
| Visual Analogue Scale (mm) | −3.29 (−9.10 to 2.53) | 0.35 | −2.76 (−11.18 to 5.66) | 0.48 | 0.53 (−9.51 to 10.56) | 0.92 |
|
| ||||||
| Chair Stand Test (rep) | −0.54 (−1.28 to 0.21) | 0.17 | −0.03 (−1.02 to 0.95) | 0.86 | 0.50 (−0.71 to 1.72) | 0.41 |
|
| ||||||
| Short Form-12 | 1.11 (−2.68 to 4.91) | 0.95 | 1.79 (−2.04 to 5.61) | 0.27 | −1.46 (−4.07 to 1.16) | 0.58 |
|
| ||||||
| Short Form-12 | −2.19 (−4.54 to 0.16) | 0.08 | −0.74 (−4.73 to 3.26) | 0.14 | 1.45 (−3.10 to 6.01) | 0.99 |
aAnalyses are based on data from n = 28 in the intervention group and n = 29 in the control group.
bPositive mean values indicate a better function, except for the Motion Sensitivity Test, Dizziness Handicap Inventory, and Visual Analogue Scale.
cThe intervention with a computerized training program.
Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test.
Figure 2Compliance in the home training period in the intervention group. CI, confidence interval.