| Literature DB >> 33273488 |
Angela Ehrhardt1, Pascal Hostettler2, Lucas Widmer2, Katja Reuter2, Jens Alexander Petersen2, Dominik Straumann2, Linard Filli2,3,4.
Abstract
Falls are common in patients with neurological disorders and are a primary cause of injuries. Nonetheless, fall-associated gait characteristics are poorly understood in these patients. Objective, quantitative gait analysis is an important tool to identify the principal fall-related motor characteristics and to advance fall prevention in patients with neurological disorders. Fall incidence was assessed in 60 subjects with different neurological disorders. Patients underwent a comprehensive set of functional assessments including instrumented gait analysis, computerized postural assessments and clinical walking tests. Determinants of falls were assessed by binary logistic regression analysis and receiver operator characteristics (ROC). The best single determinant of fallers was a step length reduction at slow walking speed reaching an accuracy of 67.2% (ROC AUC: 0.669; p = 0.027). The combination of 4 spatio-temporal gait parameters including step length and parameters of variability and asymmetry were able to classify fallers and non-fallers with an accuracy of 81.0% (ROC AUC: 0.882; p < 0.001). These findings suggest significant differences in specific spatio-temporal gait parameters between fallers and non-fallers among neurological patients. Fall-related impairments were mainly identified for spatio-temporal gait characteristics, suggesting that instrumented, objective gait analysis is an important tool to estimate patients' fall risk. Our results highlight pivotal fall-related walking deficits that might be targeted by future rehabilitative interventions that aim at attenuating falls.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33273488 PMCID: PMC7712911 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-77973-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
In- and exclusion criteria.
| Inclusion criteria | Exclusion criteria |
|---|---|
• Signed informed consent • Completed fall questionnaire • Complete dataset of clinical walking tests (timed 25-foot walk, 6-min walk test, timed up and go, functional gait assessment) • Complete set of postural assessments (body sway during normal standing, Romberg position with eyes open, Romberg position with eyes closed) • Complete dataset of treadmill walking without handrail support at 1,2 and 3 km/h • Patients ≥ 18 years with a defined neurological diagnosis | • Lack of informed consent or fall questionnaire • Incomplete dataset of clinical walking tests, postural and • locomotor assessments • Patients that were not able to understand the content of the fall questionnaire • Participants with suspected psychogenic gait disorders or major cognitive deficits • Major orthopedic, cardiovascular or pulmonary disorders affecting walking function • Patients with a secondary neurological diagnosis |
Demographic and clinical characteristics of the study population. CNS central nervous system, SD standard deviation, MS multiple sclerosis, CIS clinically isolated syndrome.
| Patients | |
|---|---|
| Number of patients | 58 |
| Age (years), mean ± SD | 52.5 ± 14.5 |
| Gender, proportion of female | 25/58 |
| Fallers, proportion of fallers | 29/58 |
Inflammatory CNS diseases (MS: n = 37; CIS: n = 2) Peripheral neuropathies Vertigo syndromes Cerebrovascular CNS diseases Myopathies Idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus | 39 7 5 3 2 2 |
Figure 1Flowchart of the sampling procedure.
Gait and postural assessments performed in this study. Walking parameters indicative of various locomotor aspects (e.g. stability, asymmetry, variability) were assessed at gait speeds of 1 km/h, 2 km/h and 3 km/h (subtable on the top).
| Spatio-temporal kinetic gait parameters | ||
|---|---|---|
| Locomotor domain | Gait parameters | Units |
| Limb excursion | Step length (left, right) | mm |
| Step time (left, right) | ms | |
| Gait phases | Stance phase (left/right) | % |
| Swing phase (left/right) | % | |
| Double-limb support | % | |
| Stability | Step width | mm |
| Asymmetry | Step length asymmetry | % |
| Step time asymmetry | % | |
| Swing phase asymmetry | % | |
| Variability | COV step length (left, right) | % |
| COV step time (left, right) | % | |
| COV step width | % | |
| CoP variability ant-post | mm | |
| CoP variability med-lat | mm |
Four clinical walking tests were assessed to quantify patients’ walking performance (intermediate table). Three different postural test conditions were performed to measure patients’ postural stability (table at the bottom). CoP center of pressure, COV coefficient of variance, mm millimeter, min minute, ms milliseconds.
Figure 2Key spatio-temporal gait parameters at different walking speeds in fallers vs. non-fallers. Spatio-temporal gait parameters were compared between fallers vs. non-fallers of our cohort. Significant differences (indicated by P-values above parameters) are based on 2-way ANOVA followed by Sidak's post hoc correlation for all 20 walking parameters at the respective gait speeds of 1 km/h, 2 km/h and 3 km/h. CoP center of pressure, COV coefficient of variance, var ML variability in mediolateral direction.
Prediction of fallers vs. non-fallers.
| Observed | Predicted | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Non-fallers | Fallers | Percentage correct | |
| Non-fallers | 17 | 13 | 56.7 |
| Fallers | 5 | 25 | 83.3 |
| Non-fallers | 20 | 10 | 66.7 |
| Fallers | 8 | 22 | 73.3 |
| Non-fallers | 22 | 8 | 73.3 |
| Fallers | 8 | 22 | 73.3 |
| Non-fallers | 24 | 6 | 80.0 |
| Fallers | 5 | 25 | 83.3 |
Classification tables illustrating observed and predicted outcomes of the binary logistic regression model using (A) the single most predictive factor (i.e. step length (right leg) at 1 km/h), as well as combinations of the most predictive factors (B-D) for falls.
CoP center of pressure, COV coefficient of variance, med-lat mediolateral.
Figure 3Receiver operator characteristics curves of the best predictors of falls. The best predictors of falls were further analyzed by receiver operator characteristics (ROC) curves to investigate the specificity and sensitivity of these variables. ROC curves were assessed for the best single predictor (Model A; top left), as well as for the best combinations of predictors (Model B–D). AUC and P-values of the ROC curves are highlighted at the right bottom corner of each panel. AUC area under the curve, CoP center of pressure, COV coefficient of variance.