| Literature DB >> 29950824 |
Shmuel Springer1, Itamar Friedman2, Avi Ohry3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Age-related changes in coordinated movement pattern of the thorax and pelvis may be one of the factors contributing to fall risk. This report describes the feasibility of using a new thoracopelvic assisted movement device to improve gait and balance in an elderly population with increased risk for falls.Entities:
Keywords: balance; gait; older adults; training
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29950824 PMCID: PMC6016007 DOI: 10.2147/CIA.S166956
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Interv Aging ISSN: 1176-9092 Impact factor: 4.458
Figure 1The Balanseat thoracopelvic assisted movement training device.
Participants’ characteristics and clinical outcomes results before treatment (Baseline), after 6 sessions (Mid), and after 12 sessions (End) for TUG, FRT, and 10MWT
| Participant | Gender | Age | Falls | TUG (seconds)
| FRT (cm)
| 10MWT (m/s)
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Mid | End | Baseline | Mid | End | Baseline | Mid | End | ||||
| 1 | F | 76 | 2 | 15 | 17 | 17 | 19 | 17 | 29 | 0.45 | 0.53 | 0.67 |
| 2 | F | 82 | 5 | 33 | 40 | 35 | 16 | 16 | 17 | 0.42 | 0.42 | 0.37 |
| 3 | M | 73 | 2 | 24 | 24 | 18 | 8 | 10 | 16.5 | 0.50 | 0.45 | 0.48 |
| 4 | F | 88 | 2 | 19 | 20 | 19 | 11 | 14.5 | 18 | 0.48 | 0.43 | 0.45 |
| 5 | M | 83 | 2 | 13 | 11 | 12 | 17 | 21 | 25.6 | 0.83 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| 6 | F | 84 | 2 | 24 | 23 | 26 | 13 | 27 | 17 | 0.45 | 0.50 | 0.43 |
| 7 | F | 84 | 2 | 21 | 15 | 15 | 14 | 22 | 24.5 | 0.59 | 0.77 | 0.77 |
| 8 | F | 81 | 2 | 15 | 13 | 13 | 21 | 26 | 30 | 0.71 | 0.77 | 0.77 |
| 9 | F | 83 | 5 | 24 | 16 | 13 | 15 | 24 | 21.5 | 0.50 | 0.59 | 0.77 |
| 10 | M | 90 | 2 | 24 | 14 | 15 | 14 | 22 | 21 | 0.77 | 0.83 | 1.11 |
| 11 | F | 77 | 2 | 27 | 19 | 14 | 19 | 21 | 23 | 0.37 | 0.53 | 0.71 |
| 12 | F | 87 | 2 | 15 | 14 | 14 | 15 | 24 | 26 | 0.67 | 0.71 | 0.83 |
| 13 | F | 77 | 2 | 16 | 14 | 11 | 24 | 30 | 33 | 0.67 | 0.71 | 0.83 |
| 14 | F | 87 | 2 | 21 | 15 | 16 | 7 | 19 | 19 | 0.63 | 0.71 | 0.91 |
| 15 | F | 78 | 5 | 32 | 34 | 34 | 9 | 11 | 15.3 | 0.45 | 0.36 | 0.42 |
| 16 | F | 88 | 2 | 23 | 22 | 17 | 18 | 15 | 16 | 0.56 | 0.53 | 0.67 |
| 17 | M | 99 | 2 | 27 | 28 | 18 | 17 | 12 | 19 | 0.50 | 0.53 | 0.71 |
| 18 | F | 88 | 2 | 20 | 14 | 12 | 16 | 23 | 17.5 | 0.53 | 0.63 | 0.77 |
| 19 | M | 78 | 2 | 9.5 | 9 | 9 | 25 | 28 | 29 | 0.91 | 1.11 | 1.25 |
| Median (range) | 83 (73–99) | 2 (2–5) | 21 (9.5–33) | 16 (9–40) | 15 (9–35) | 16 (7–25) | 21 (10–30) | 21 (15.3–33) | 0.53 (0.37–0.91) | 0.59 (0.36–1.11) | 0.77 (0.37–1.25) | |
Note:
Participants who improved >MDC compared to baseline.
Abbreviations: 10MWT, 10-meter Walk Test; FRT, Functional Reach Test; MDC, minimal detectable change; TUG, Timed Up and Go; F, female; M, male.
Participants whose clinical outcomes improved more than the MDC values, and/or improved to surpass cut-off values
| Test | Results of intervention | Mid | End |
|---|---|---|---|
| TUG | Change >4 seconds | 6 (32%) | 10 (53%) |
| Improved to under the fall risk cut-off (13.5 seconds) | 1 (5%) | 3 (16%) | |
| FRT | Change >4.3 cm | 8 (42%) | 11 (58%) |
| Improved to above the fall risk cut-off (18.5 cm) | 8 (42%) | 7 (37%) | |
| 10MWT | Change >0.1 m/s | 5 (26%) | 13 (68%) |
| Improved to a higher category of ambulation | 1 (5%) | 4 (21%) |
Abbreviations: 10MWT, 10-meter Walk Test; FRT, Functional Reach Test; MDC, minimal detectable change; TUG, Timed Up and Go.
Figure 2Analysis of categories used to describe the treatment effect after 12 sessions (n=19 participants).
Notes: (A) No improvement, (B) minor improvement (up to 10% change), (C) moderate improvement (10%–20% change), (D) substantial improvement, (20%–30% change), and (E) extensive improvement (>30% change).
Abbreviations: 10MWT, 10-meter Walk Test; FRT, Functional Reach Test; TUG, Timed Up and Go.