Peter C Coyle1, Jenifer M Pugliese1, J Megan Sions1, Mark S Eskander2, Jennifer A Schrack3, Gregory E Hicks4. 1. Department of Physical Therapy, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware. 2. Delaware Orthopaedic Specialists, Newark, Delaware. 3. Center on Aging and Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland; Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland. 4. Department of Physical Therapy, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware. Electronic address: ghicks@udel.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact that the presence of chronic low back pain with radiculopathy (CLBPR) may have on (1) energy efficiency and (2) energy capacity among community-dwelling older adults. DESIGN: Matched case-control study. SETTING: Clinical research laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Included in the analysis were community-dwelling older adults (N=38, 60-85 years) with and without CLBPR. Participants were matched between-groups on age (±5 years), sex, and diabetic status. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Energy cost of walking at self-selected speed (ie, energy efficiency) and peak volume of oxygen consumed (ie, energy capacity). RESULTS: Older adults with CLBPR had a higher energy cost of walking at self-selected speed (P=.009) and lower peak volume of oxygen consumed while walking (P=.050), compared to those without pain. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults with CLBPR may benefit from specific rehabilitative interventions that target these potentially modifiable energetic outcomes, thereby reducing the risk of mobility decline. Future studies should identify which mechanisms specifically contribute to diminished energy efficiency and capacity among older adults with CLBPR.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact that the presence of chronic low back pain with radiculopathy (CLBPR) may have on (1) energy efficiency and (2) energy capacity among community-dwelling older adults. DESIGN: Matched case-control study. SETTING: Clinical research laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Included in the analysis were community-dwelling older adults (N=38, 60-85 years) with and without CLBPR. Participants were matched between-groups on age (±5 years), sex, and diabetic status. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Energy cost of walking at self-selected speed (ie, energy efficiency) and peak volume of oxygen consumed (ie, energy capacity). RESULTS: Older adults with CLBPR had a higher energy cost of walking at self-selected speed (P=.009) and lower peak volume of oxygen consumed while walking (P=.050), compared to those without pain. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults with CLBPR may benefit from specific rehabilitative interventions that target these potentially modifiable energetic outcomes, thereby reducing the risk of mobility decline. Future studies should identify which mechanisms specifically contribute to diminished energy efficiency and capacity among older adults with CLBPR.
Authors: Peter C Coyle; Jenifer M Pugliese; J Megan Sions; Mark S Eskander; Jennifer A Schrack; Gregory E Hicks Journal: J Geriatr Phys Ther Date: 2019 Oct/Dec Impact factor: 3.381
Authors: Jo Armour Smith; Heidi Stabbert; Jennifer J Bagwell; Hsiang-Ling Teng; Vernie Wade; Szu-Ping Lee Journal: J Sport Health Sci Date: 2022-02-10 Impact factor: 13.077