| Literature DB >> 33542962 |
Tomohiro Yamada1, Yu Yamato1,2, Tomohiko Hasegawa1, Go Yoshida1, Tatsuya Yasuda1, Tomohiro Banno1, Hideyuki Arima1, Shin Oe1, Hiroki Ushirozako1, Ide Koichiro1, Yuh Watanabe1, Yukihiro Matsuyama1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This longitudinal study aimed to evaluate the effect of acquisition of an exercise habit on locomotive dysfunction (LD).Entities:
Keywords: 25-question Geriatric Locomotive Function Scale; community-dwelling volunteers; exercise habits; knee osteoarthritis; locomotive dysfunction
Year: 2021 PMID: 33542962 PMCID: PMC7843592 DOI: 10.2490/prm.20210006
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Prog Rehabil Med ISSN: 2432-1354
Fig. 1.Flow chart of subject selection and study design.
Comparison of the eligible (n=317) and excluded (n=311) volunteers
| Background | Eligible (n=317) | Excluded (n=311) | P values |
| Age (years) | 73.9 ± 7.0 | 72.4 ± 11.4 | 0.83 |
| Female (n) | 196 (61.8%) | 172 (55.4%) | 0.23 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 22.5 ± 2.9 | 22.4 ± 3.2 | 0.61 |
| CCI | 2.92 ± 0.86 | 3.02 ± 1.22 | 0.32 |
| GLFS-25 | 9.5 ± 10.2 | 8.3 ± 10.5 | 0.34 |
Data are presented as the mean ± standard deviation or n.BMI: body mass index, CCI: Charlson comorbidity index, GLFS-25: the 25-question Geriatric Locomotive Function Scale.
Comparison of baseline (2012) demographic variables among Ex, Non-Ex, and Ac-Ex groups
| Men | Women | |||||||
| Background | Ex | Non-Ex (n=64) | Ac-Ex (n=15) | P values | Ex | Non-Ex (n=83) | Ac-Ex (n=25) | P values |
| Age (years) | 73.9 ± 7.0 | 72.1 ± 7.9 | 73.5 ± 6.7 | 0.24 | 72.8 ± 6.0 | 70.9 ± 7.8 | 72.5 ± 7.2 | 0.15 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 22.7 ± 2.3 | 22.6 ± 2.9 | 23.4 ± 2.6 | 0.61 | 22.3 ± 2.8 | 22.3 ± 3.2 | 22.1 ± 2.7 | 0.48 |
| CCI | 3.41 ± 1.14 | 3.40 ± 1.39 | 3.71 ± 1.49 | 0.47 | 3.28 ± 1.27 | 3.22 ± 1.11 | 3.18 ± 0.98 | 0.38 |
| VAS (mm) | 21.2 ± 23.3 | 23.3 ± 20.1 | 21.4 ± 22.4 | 0.91 | 22.5 ± 19.0 | 26.5 ± 22.3 | 23.1 ± 21.4 | 0.58 |
| BMD (%YAM) | 78.4 ± 13.1 | 78.1 ± 13.9 | 79.1 ± 17 | 0.95 | 69.5 ± 11.5 | 71.6 ± 12.8 | 71.6 ± 12.9 | 0.49 |
| Knee | 17 (41) | 19 (30) | 6 (40) | 0.20 | 52 (59) | 45 (54) | 19 (76) | |
| Degenerative | 18 (43) | 38 (59) | 7 (47) | 0.062 | 48 (55) | 53 (64) | 16 (64) | 0.32 |
Data are presented as the mean ± standard deviation or n.VAS: visual analog scale, BMD: bone mineral density, YAM: young adult mean.*Statistically significant (P<0.05).
Comparison of GLFS-25 scores and physical test results among Ex, Non-Ex and Ac-Ex groups
| Men | Women | |||||||
| Ex (n=42) | Non-Ex (n=64) | Ac-Ex (n=15) | P values | Ex | Non-Ex (n=83) | Ac-Ex (n=25) | P values | |
| GLFS-25 score | ||||||||
| Baseline | 7.7 ± 10.2 | 7.1 ± 8.0 | 7.9 ± 9.8 | 0.93 | 8.2 ± 7.3 | 12.5 ± 12.3 | 7.9 ± 7.7 | 0.072 |
| After 2 years | 7.3 ± 9.9 | 9.3 ± 11.9 | 4.7 ± 4.6 | 0.28 | 8.2 ± 7.5 | 13.1 ± 11.8 | 7.6 ± 8.3 | 0.087 |
| P values | 0.74 | 0.96 | 0.75 | 0.89 | ||||
| One-leg standing test (s) | ||||||||
| Baseline | 38.0 ± 22.3 | 42.3 ± 20.5 | 47.9 ± 19.0 | 0.27 | 41.0 ± 23.6 | 45.0 ± 22.1 | 45.0 ± 22.0 | 0.67 |
| After 2 years | 38.0 ± 23.5 | 37.5 ± 23.4 | 49.6 ± 19.7 | 0.29 | 40.0 ± 22.5 | 37.4 ± 23.9 | 46.5 ± 22.9 | 0.44 |
| P values | 0.99 | 0.079 | 0.86 | 0.56 | 0.059 | 0.73 | ||
| Long seat forward bending (cm) | ||||||||
| Baseline | 27.8 ± 9.4 | 33.5 ± 12.7 | 30.4 ± 7.9 | 0.25 | 34.9 ± 7.1 | 33.6 ± 7.7 | 34.0 ± 7.5 | 0.52 |
| After 2 years | 30.0 ± 10.3 | 32.4 ± 9.5 | 33.3 ± 7.8 | 0.46 | 35.6 ± 8.4 | 32.6 ± 8.9 | 34.8 ± 8.6 | 0.085 |
| P values | 0.11 | 0.52 | 0.36 | 0.29 | 0.11 | 0.89 | ||
| Functional reach test (cm) | ||||||||
| Baseline | 37.0 ± 6.6 | 38.4 ± 6.5 | 38.2 ± 7.2 | 0.30 | 34.4 ± 6.9 | 35.0 ± 7.1 | 36.1 ± 5.7 | 0.79 |
| After 2 years | 37.7 ± 7.6 | 37.1 ± 7.5 | 38.4 ± 5.2 | 0.77 | 35.5 ± 7.7 | 34.0 ± 7.6 | 38.7 ± 5.5 | 0.097 |
| P values | 0.49 | 0.14 | 0.91 | 0.22 | 0.12 | 0.42 | ||
Data are presented as the mean ± standard deviation.*Statistically significant (P<0.05).
Fig. 2.GLFS-25 scores in the exercise acquiring group for each domain. (A) Comparison between the men’s scores in 2012 and 2014. (B) Comparison between women’s scores in 2012 and 2014. *Statistically significant (P<0.05).