| Literature DB >> 32714985 |
Aneta Dąbrowska1,2, Marzena A Olszewska-Karaban1,3, Anna K Permoda-Białozorczyk3,4, Dominika A Szalewska1.
Abstract
Proper posture provides the best balance and body stability at minimal muscular effort. It is constantly controlled by the central nervous system, which integrates the stimuli from the proprioceptors (deep feeling sensors), vision receptors, and balance receptors through the subcortical structures. The main purpose of the study was to describe single stance stability and its correlation with the degree of scoliosis and trunk rotation among patients suffering from idiopathic scoliosis and in the control group without scoliosis. The study included 80 patients (69 girls and 11 boys) and 40 healthy children without scoliosis (21 girls and 19 boys). The Cobb angle technique was used to determine the magnitude of the deformity. All subjects were divided into three subgroups according to Bogdanov's classification. Single stance stability with eyes open and eyes closed was assessed with an electronic postural station-Delos Postural Proprioceptive System (DPPS). In case of multiple group comparisons for variables with normal distribution ANOVA with Scheffe, post hoc test was used or Kruskal-Wallis test was used as the nonparametric equivalent. The relationship between the two continuous variables was investigated using either Pearson product-moment correlation or Spearman's rank correlation. In all these calculations, the statistical significance level was set to p < 0.05. The single stance test showed a significant difference between the stability index with eyes open and stability index with eyes closed in study and control groups. The character of these alterations is influenced by the degree of trunk rotation. The degree of scoliosis according to Bogdanov classification does not determine the decrease in stability indexes. In summary, significantly lower values of the stability index during one-leg standing with eyes closed indicated balance impairment, which is mainly connected with inadequate functioning of the proprioceptive system.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32714985 PMCID: PMC7355347 DOI: 10.1155/2020/7936095
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Subject characteristics.
| Variables | Study group | Control group |
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Girls | Boys | All subjects | Girls | Boys | All subjects | ||
| 69 | 11 | 80 | 21 | 19 | 40 | ||
| Age (years) | 13.81 ± 1.76 | 15 ± 1.79 | 13.98 ± 1.8 | 14.48 ± 2.29 | 13 ± 1.07 | 14.11 ± 2.08 | >0.05 |
| Risser sign | 2.31 ± 1.76 | 2.86 ± 1.19 | 2 ± 1.7 | — | — | — | — |
| Height (cm) | 161.83 ± 8.45 | 171.27 ± 10.57 | 163.13 ± 9.2 | 163.35 ± 13.85 | 162.75 ± 10.93 | 162.5 ± 12.6 | >0.05 |
| Body weight (kg) | 48 ± 7.86 | 57.27 ± 9.56 | 49.27 ± 8.67 | 53.13 ± 12.76 | 55.25 ± 17.97 | 53.36 ± 13.65 | >0.05 |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 18.28 ± 2.42 | 19.42 ± 1.87 | 18.43 ± 2.38 | 19.76 ± 2.38 | 20.40 ± 3.3 | 19.96 ± 3.3 | >0.05 |
Values are mean ± SD.
Group characteristics according to the value of the primary curve among 80 patients with idiopathic scoliosis according to Bogdanov.
| Variables | Scoliosis value (°) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| <20 | 20-40 | 41-60 | |
| No. of subjects (%) | 21 (26) | 47 (59) | 12 (15) |
| Age ± SD (y) | 13.42 ± 1.43 | 14.21 ± 1.69 | 14 ± 2.59 |
| Cobb angle of the primary curve ± SD (°) | 14 ± 2.59 | 28.89 ± 1.69 | 48.17 ± 2.59 |
Values are mean ± SD; SD: standard deviation; y: years.
Characteristics of the participants from the study group in relation to the angle of trunk rotation (n = 79).
| Variables | Study group | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | |
| Range of ATR value (°) | ≤5 | 6-10 | ≥11 |
| No. of subjects (%) | 18 (23) | 46 (58) | 15 (19) |
| Age ± SD (y) | 14.22 ± 1.73 | 14.07 ± 1.71 | 13.67 ± 1.92 |
| ATR ± SD (°) | 4.56 ± 1.73 | 8.94 ± 1.71 | 13.53 ± 1.92 |
ATR value: the angle of trunk rotation; values are mean ± SD; SD: standard deviation; y: years.
Figure 1Delos Postural Proprioceptive System: (a) the postural proprioceptive station; (b) wooden research station (Delos Equilibrium Board); (c) DVC vertical controller (Delos Vertical Controller); (d) vests used for DVC fastening (material from the “Wyspa” Therapy Center in Gdańsk, Poland).
Figure 2Graphical comparison of the mean stability index between the control and the scoliosis (study) group. SI OE: stability index in trials with open eyes/postural control index; SI CE: stability index in trials with closed eyes/proprioceptive control index.
Figure 3Graphic comparison of the mean values of the stability indexes in the groups with open and closed eyes. SI OE and SI CE with respect to scoliosis value according to Bogdanov. SI OE: the stability index in open eyes trials; SI CE: the stability index in closed eyes trials.
Figure 4The diagram of correlation between ATR index and the mean stability index in the closed eyes trials (n = 79). ATR: angle of trunk rotation; SI CE: stability index in closed eyes trials.
Table showing multiple variables SI OE and SI CE in the study group with scoliosis divided with respect to the value of the angle of the trunk rotation. Three groups distinguished depending on the angle of trunk rotation: I, II, and III. Group I: ≤5° ATR, group II: 6-10° ATR, and group III: ≥11° ATR.
| Variables | Group I | Group II | Group III | (pI, pII, pIII) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SI OE | 86.45 ± 13.3 | 87.99 ± 8.4 | 84.77 ± 14.5 | (NS, NS, NS) |
| SI CE | 73.76 ± 27.8 | 72.82 ± 17.5 | 61.91 ± 30.4 | (NS, <0.05, <0.05) |
SI OE: the stability index in open eyes trials; SI CE: the stability index in closed eyes trials; pI: group I vs. group II; pII: group I vs. group III; pIII: group II vs. group III; NS: not significant.