| Literature DB >> 27053967 |
Fábio Marcon Alfieri1, Marcelo Riberto2, José Augusto Fernandes Lopes3, Thais Raquel Filippo3, Marta Imamura3, Linamara Rizzo Battistella3.
Abstract
A stroke and aging process can modify the postural control. We aimed to compare the postural control of health elderly individuals to that of individuals with stroke sequelae. This cross-sectional transversal study was made with individuals capable of walking without any assistance and that were considered clinically stable. The study had 18 individuals in the group with stroke sequelae (SG) and 34 in the healthy elderly control group (CG). The participants were evaluated for the timed up and go test (TUG) and force platform. The SG showed the worst results in relation to the time of execution of the TUG and the force platform evaluation. The displacement of center of pressure was worse for both groups in the eyes-closed situation, especially in the anteroposterior direction for the CG. The GS showed worse results in the static and dynamic postural control. The healthy elderly showed more dependence on sight to maintain their static balance and there was no difference in the balance tests in relation to the side affected by the stroke.Entities:
Keywords: Balance; Functional mobility; Older adults; Sequelae; Stroke; TUG
Year: 2016 PMID: 27053967 PMCID: PMC4797679 DOI: 10.2174/1874205X01610010001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Open Neurol J ISSN: 1874-205X
General characteristics and result of functional mobility of participants (Mean±SD).
| GS | GC | p | |
|---|---|---|---|
| N | 18 | 34 | |
| F/M | 6/12 | 32/2 | < 0.0001* |
| Age (years) | 68.2±6.3 | 69.5±5.4 | 0.44** |
| BMI (kg/cm2) | 25.3±2.03 | 27.5±3.4 | 0.015** |
| Time of lesion (months) | 33.9±24.7 | - | |
| Plegic side L/R | 8/10 | - |
Notes: Values are presented as mean and standard deviation (SD). **unpaired t-test; Kg, kilogram; cm, centimeter; BMI, body mass index; F, female; M, male; GS, stroke group; GC control group; L, left; R, right; * chi-square; ** Student t test.
Comparison results of parameters of postural sway.
| GS | GC | p | |
|---|---|---|---|
| TUG (s) | 32.21±24,56 | 8.95±1.71 | <0.0001* |
| A/P displ (cm)-OE | 3.44±0.99 | 2.81±1.02 | <0.001 |
| A/P displ (cm)-EC | 4.88±5.25 | 3.42±1.33** | 0.05 |
| M/L displ (cm)-OE | 2.53±1.45 | 1.95±1.53 | <0.01 |
| M/L displ (cm)-EC | 2.85±1.87 | 2.08±1.18 | <0.001 |
Note: TUG, timed up and go test; s, seconds; A/P, anteroposterior; displ, displacement of center of pressure; M/L, mediolateral; cm, centimeters; OE, open eyes; EC, eyes closed; * unpaired test t; ** p<0.001- intragroup relation OE x EC).
Comparison results of parameters of postural sway between paretics sides: left (L) and right (R).
| GS- R | GS- L | p | |
|---|---|---|---|
| TUG (s) | 34.36±30.46 | 29.45±9.29 | NS |
| A/P displ (cm)-EC | 3.61±1.32 | 3.94±1,03 | NS |
| M/L displ (cm)-OE | 2.35±1.26 | 2.62±1.63 | NS |
| M/L displ (cm)-EC | 2.78±1.29 | 2.53±1.46 | NS |
Note: TUG, timed up and go test; s, seconds; A/P, anteroposterior; displ, displacement of center of pressure; M/L, mediolateral; cm, centimeters; OE, open eyes; EC, eyes closed; NS, no significant.