Abigail C Schmitt1, Chris P Repka2, Gary D Heise3, John H Challis4, Jeremy D Smith3. 1. Michael W. Krzyzewski Human Performance Lab, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke University, 3475 Erwin Rd, Durham, NC 27705, USA. Electronic address: a.schmitt@ufl.edu. 2. Department of Health Sciences, Northern Arizona University, 1100 South Beaver St. #15095, Flagstaff, AZ 86011, USA. 3. School of Sport & Exercise Science, University of Northern Colorado, Gunter Hall 2760, Greeley, CO 80639, USA. 4. Biomechanics Lab, The Pennsylvania State University, 29K Recreation Building, University Park, PA 16802, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The combination of peripheral neuropathy and other treatment-associated side effects is likely related to an increased incidence of falls in cancer survivors. The purpose of this study was to quantify differences in postural stability between healthy age-matched controls and cancer survivors. METHODS: Quiet standing under four conditions (eyes open/closed, rigid/compliant surface) was assessed in 34 cancer survivors (2 males, 32 females; age: 54(13) yrs., height: 1.62(0.07) m; mass: 78.5(19.5) kg) and 34 age-matched controls (5 males, 29 females; age: 54(15) yrs.; height: 1.62(0.08) m; mass: 72.8(21.1) kg). Center of pressure data were collected for 30s and the trajectories were analyzed (100Hz). Three-factor (group*surface*vision) mixed model MANOVAs with repeated measures were used to determine the effect of vision and surface on postural steadiness between groups. FINDINGS: Cancer survivors exhibited larger mediolateral root-mean square distance and velocity of the center of pressure, as well as increased 95% confidence ellipse area (P<0.01) when compared with their age-matched counterparts. For example, when removing visual input, cancer survivors had an average increase in 95% confidence ellipse area of 91.8mm2 while standing on a rigid surface compared to a 68.6mm2 increase for the control group. No frequency-based center of pressure measures differed between groups. INTERPRETATION: Cancer survivors exhibit decreased postural steadiness when compared with age-matched controls. For cancer survivors undergoing rehabilitation focused on existing balance deficits, a small subset of the center of pressure measures presented here can be used to track progress throughout the intervention and potentially mitigate fall risk.
BACKGROUND: The combination of peripheral neuropathy and other treatment-associated side effects is likely related to an increased incidence of falls in cancer survivors. The purpose of this study was to quantify differences in postural stability between healthy age-matched controls and cancer survivors. METHODS: Quiet standing under four conditions (eyes open/closed, rigid/compliant surface) was assessed in 34 cancer survivors (2 males, 32 females; age: 54(13) yrs., height: 1.62(0.07) m; mass: 78.5(19.5) kg) and 34 age-matched controls (5 males, 29 females; age: 54(15) yrs.; height: 1.62(0.08) m; mass: 72.8(21.1) kg). Center of pressure data were collected for 30s and the trajectories were analyzed (100Hz). Three-factor (group*surface*vision) mixed model MANOVAs with repeated measures were used to determine the effect of vision and surface on postural steadiness between groups. FINDINGS:Cancer survivors exhibited larger mediolateral root-mean square distance and velocity of the center of pressure, as well as increased 95% confidence ellipse area (P<0.01) when compared with their age-matched counterparts. For example, when removing visual input, cancer survivors had an average increase in 95% confidence ellipse area of 91.8mm2 while standing on a rigid surface compared to a 68.6mm2 increase for the control group. No frequency-based center of pressure measures differed between groups. INTERPRETATION:Cancer survivors exhibit decreased postural steadiness when compared with age-matched controls. For cancer survivors undergoing rehabilitation focused on existing balance deficits, a small subset of the center of pressure measures presented here can be used to track progress throughout the intervention and potentially mitigate fall risk.
Authors: Peter C Fino; Fay B Horak; Mahmoud El-Gohary; Carolyn Guidarelli; Mary E Medysky; Sarah J Nagle; Kerri M Winters-Stone Journal: Gait Posture Date: 2019-01-17 Impact factor: 2.840
Authors: Scott M Monfort; Xueliang Pan; Charles L Loprinzi; Maryam B Lustberg; Ajit M W Chaudhari Journal: Integr Cancer Ther Date: 2019 Jan-Dec Impact factor: 3.279
Authors: Allison B Wang; Stephen N Housley; Ann Marie Flores; Sheetal M Kircher; Eric J Perreault; Timothy C Cope Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil Date: 2021-01-25 Impact factor: 4.262