Odessa Addison1, Mario Inacio2, Woei-Nan Bair2, Brock A Beamer3, Alice S Ryan3, Mark W Rogers4. 1. Department of Veterans Affairs and Veterans Affairs Medical Center Baltimore, Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center (GRECC), Baltimore, MD; Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Science, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. 2. Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Science, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. 3. Department of Veterans Affairs and Veterans Affairs Medical Center Baltimore, Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center (GRECC), Baltimore, MD; Division of Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. 4. Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Science, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. Electronic address: mrogers@som.umaryland.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine differences in hip abductor strength and composition between older adults who primarily use medial step versus cross-step recovery strategies to lateral balance perturbations. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: University research laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling older adults (N=40) divided into medial steppers (n=14) and cross-steppers (n=26) based on the first step of balance recovery after a lateral balance perturbation. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Computed tomography scans to quantify lean tissue and intramuscular adipose tissue (IMAT) areas in the hip abductor, hip abductor isokinetic torque, and first step length. RESULTS: Medial steppers took medial steps in 71.1% of trials versus 4.6% of trials with cross-steps. The cross-steppers when compared with medial steppers, had lower hip abductor IMAT (24.7±0.7% vs 29.9±2.8%; P<.05), greater abductor torque (63.3±3.6Nm vs 48.4±4.1Nm; P<.01), and greater normalized first step length (.75±.03 vs .43±.08; P<.001). There was no difference in hip abductor lean tissue between the groups (P>.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that older adults who initially use a medial step to recover lateral balance have lower hip abductor torque and may be less able to execute a biomechanically more stable cross-step. This may be related to increased IMAT levels. Assessments and interventions for enhancing balance and decreasing fall risk should take the role of the hip abductor into account.
OBJECTIVES: To examine differences in hip abductor strength and composition between older adults who primarily use medial step versus cross-step recovery strategies to lateral balance perturbations. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: University research laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling older adults (N=40) divided into medial steppers (n=14) and cross-steppers (n=26) based on the first step of balance recovery after a lateral balance perturbation. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Computed tomography scans to quantify lean tissue and intramuscular adipose tissue (IMAT) areas in the hip abductor, hip abductor isokinetic torque, and first step length. RESULTS: Medial steppers took medial steps in 71.1% of trials versus 4.6% of trials with cross-steps. The cross-steppers when compared with medial steppers, had lower hip abductor IMAT (24.7±0.7% vs 29.9±2.8%; P<.05), greater abductor torque (63.3±3.6Nm vs 48.4±4.1Nm; P<.01), and greater normalized first step length (.75±.03 vs .43±.08; P<.001). There was no difference in hip abductor lean tissue between the groups (P>.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that older adults who initially use a medial step to recover lateral balance have lower hip abductor torque and may be less able to execute a biomechanically more stable cross-step. This may be related to increased IMAT levels. Assessments and interventions for enhancing balance and decreasing fall risk should take the role of the hip abductor into account.
Authors: Daina L Sturnieks; Jasmine Menant; Jos Vanrenterghem; Kim Delbaere; Richard C Fitzpatrick; Stephen R Lord Journal: Gait Posture Date: 2012-06-26 Impact factor: 2.840
Authors: Daniel C Bittel; Adam J Bittel; Lori J Tuttle; Mary K Hastings; Paul K Commean; Michael J Mueller; W Todd Cade; David R Sinacore Journal: J Diabetes Complications Date: 2014-11-13 Impact factor: 2.852
Authors: Mina Arvin; Marco J M Hoozemans; Bart J Burger; Sietse M Rispens; Sabine M P Verschueren; Jaap H van Dieën; Mirjam Pijnappels Journal: Gait Posture Date: 2015-09-05 Impact factor: 2.840
Authors: O Addison; M J Drummond; P C LaStayo; L E Dibble; A R Wende; D A McClain; R L Marcus Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Leah A Davis; Stephen P Allen; Landon D Hamilton; Alena M Grabowski; Roger M Enoka Journal: Exp Brain Res Date: 2020-01-20 Impact factor: 1.972
Authors: Mark W Rogers; Robert A Creath; Vicki Gray; Janice Abarro; Sandy McCombe Waller; Brock A Beamer; John D Sorkin Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2021-08-13 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Brian J Loyd; Jason M Jennings; Dana L Judd; Raymond H Kim; Pamela Wolfe; Douglas A Dennis; Jennifer E Stevens-Lapsley Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2017-09-01