| Literature DB >> 35207341 |
Alberto Romano1, Martina Favetta1, Susanna Summa1, Tommaso Schirinzi2, Enrico Silvio Bertini3, Enrico Castelli1, Gessica Vasco1, Maurizio Petrarca1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Children with ataxia experience balance and movement coordination difficulties and needs intensive physical intervention to maintain functional abilities and counteract the disorder. Exergaming represents a valuable strategy to provide engaging physical intervention to children with ataxia, sustaining their motivation to perform the intervention. This paper aims to describe the effect of a home-conducted exergame-based exercise training for upper body movements control of children with ataxia on their ataxic symptoms, walking ability, and hand dexterity.Entities:
Keywords: ataxia; exergaming; hand dexterity; telerehabilitation; treatment adherence and compliance
Year: 2022 PMID: 35207341 PMCID: PMC8876617 DOI: 10.3390/jcm11041065
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.241
Participants’ group, age at baseline (T0), diagnosis, and SARA items and total scores. The horizontal line separates the data obtained from participants in the IG and CG.
| Group | Pt. | Age at T0 (Years) | Sex | Diagnosis | SARA Scores | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gait | Stance | Sitting | Speech Disturbance | Finger Chase | Nose-Finger Test | Fast Alternating Hand Movements | Heel-Shin Slide | SARA Total Score | |||||
|
| 1 | 14.9 | F | Non-genetic ataxia | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 11 |
| 2 | 10.2 | M | Joubert’s ataxia | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 8 | |
| 3 | 10 | F | ARCA2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 10 | |
| 4 | 8.6 | M | ARCA2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 4 | |
| 5 | 15.5 | F | ARCA2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 9 | |
| 6 | 9.5 | F | Friedreich’s ataxia * | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 11 | |
| 7 | 8.5 | M | Friedreich’s ataxia * | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 10 | |
| 8 | 16.9 | F | Friedreich’s ataxia * | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 1.5 | 9 | |
| 9 | 10.5 | F | ARSACS * | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2.5 | 2 | 10.5 | |
|
| 10 | 17.2 | F | Non-genetic ataxia | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 8 |
| 11 | 15.5 | F | Joubert’s ataxia | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 | |
| 12 | 11.2 | M | Joubert’s ataxia | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | |
| 13 | 10.4 | M | ARCA2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1.5 | 12.5 | |
| 14 | 7.7 | M | ARCA2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1.5 | 3 | 3.5 | 15 | |
| 15 | 9 | F | Friedreich’s ataxia * | 3 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1.5 | 3 | 2.5 | 15 | |
| 16 | 12.6 | F | Friedreich’s ataxia * | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.5 | 1.5 | 7.5 | |
| 17 | 15.4 | M | Friedreich’s ataxia * | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 12 | |
| 18 | 5.1 | F | Ataxia telangiectasia * | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 10 | |
Abbreviation list: IG = Intervention Group; CG = Control Group; Pt. = Participants; M = Male; F = Female; ARCA2 = Autosomal Recessive Cerebellar Ataxia 2; ARSACS = Autosomal recessive spastic ataxia of Charlevoix-Saguenay; SARA = Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia. *: progressive ataxia.
Figure 1Visual description of IMU sensors (marked with asterisks) placement in the Niurion® shirt.
Figure 2Example of shoulder 180° abduction exercise execution with related avatar movement.
Average adherence for each exercise and the whole treatment. The percentage represents the average portion of time spent by participants in the IG in each exercise compared to the time required by the protocol (60 1 h sessions).
| Exercises | Adherence |
|---|---|
| Elbow flexion | 53.3 ± 0.4% |
| Shoulder 90° abduction | 64.1 ± 0.2% |
| Shoulder 180° abduction | 58.0 ± 0.3% |
| Shoulder 90° flexion | 64.4 ± 0.3% |
| Shoulder 180° flexion | 66.1 ± 0.3% |
| Ipsilateral target reaching | 62.8 ± 0.3% |
| Controlateral target reaching | 56.4 ± 0.3% |
| Trunk oscillation | 63.9 ± 0.3% |
| General adherence | 61.5 ± 3.9% |
Abbreviation list: Avg = Average; SD = Standard Deviation.
Descriptive statistics and statistical analysis of outcome measures scores for IC and CG at T0 and T1 and occurred scores variation (∆). “IG” (T0 and T1), “CG” (T0 and T1), and “∆ Scores” (∆ IG and ∆ CG) columns report the average score and standard deviation (in parenthesis) for each outcome measure. “p-value IG T0 vs. T1” and “p-value CG T0 vs. T1” columns report the results obtained from the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test analyzing the scores difference between T0 and T1 for each group. “p-value ∆ IG vs. ∆ CG” column reports the results attained from the Mann–Whitney U test comparing the variation in the scores (∆) of the IG and CG.
| IG | CG | ∆ Scores | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T0 | T1 | T0 | T1 | ∆ IG | ∆ CG | |||||
| SARA Scores | Gait | 2 (0.7) | 2.1 (0.9) | 0.65 | 1.8 (0.8) | 2 (0.5) | 0.48 | −0.1 (0.8) | −0.2 (1) | 0.60 |
| Stance | 1 (0.9) | 1.1 (0.8) | 0.32 | 1.8 (0.7) | 1.6 (0.7) | 0.16 | −0.1 (0.3) | 0.2 (0.4) | 0.09 | |
| Sitting | 0.1 (0.3) | 0 (0) | 0.32 | 0.1 (0.3) | 0.3 (0.7) | 0.16 | 0.1 (0.3) | −0.2 (0.4) | 0.09 | |
| Speech disturbance | 1.1 (0.8) | 1.2 (0.8) | 1.00 | 1 (0.7) | 1.4 (1) | 0.18 | 0 (0.5) | −0.4 (1) | 0.30 | |
| Finger Chase | 0.8 (0.4) | 0.8 (0.4) | 0.32 | 0.9 (0.2) | 1.1 (0.8) | 0.59 | −0.1 (0.2) | −0.2 (0.8) | 0.90 | |
| Nose-finger test | 0.9 (0.3) | 1 (0) | 1.00 | 1 (0.4) | 1.2 (0.8) | 0.71 | 0 (0) | −0.2 (0.8) | 1.00 | |
| Fast alternating hand movements | 2 (1.1) | 1.9 (0.9) | 1.00 | 1.7 (1.3) | 1.8 (1.2) | 0.32 | 0.1 (0.8) | −0.1 (0.2) | 0.90 | |
| Heel-shin slide | 1.3 (0.6) | 1.4 (0.6) | 0.16 | 1.8 (1.1) | 1.7 (1) | 1.00 | −0.1 (0.2) | 0.1 (0.8) | 0.80 | |
| SARA Total score | 9.2 (2.2) | 9.6 (2.4) | 0.18 | 10.1 (3.7) | 11.1 (3.9) | 0.02 *↓ | −0.4 (0.9) | −0.9 (1) | 0.31 | |
| T25FW | 5.3 (1) | 5.3 (0.5) | 0.86 | 6.3 (1.4) | 5.9 (1.2) | 0.31 | 0.1 (0.8) | 0.3 (0.7) | 0.31 | |
| 9HPT Dominant hand | 37.9 (8.4) | 34.9 (6) | 0.05 *↑ | 39.1 (8.9) | 41.9 (11) | 0.03 *↓ | 3 (3.9) | −2.6 (3.1) | 0.01 * | |
| 9HPT Non-dominant hand | 40.2 (9) | 38.3 (7.5) | 0.17 | 45.2 (10.1) | 46.6 (9.9) | 0.37 | 1.9 (3.3) | −1.6 (3.9) | 0.08 | |
Abbreviation list: SARA = Scale for Assessment and Rating of Ataxia; T25FW = Timed 25-Foot Walk; 9HPT = 9-Hole Peg Test; IG = Intervention Group; CG = Control Group; T0 = pre-intervention evaluation; T1 = post-intervention evaluation. ∆: Delta; *: p-value ≤ 0.05; ↑: statistically significant change reflects an improvement; ↓: statistically significant change reflects a worsening.
Figure 3(a) Dominant and (b) non-dominant hands individual 9HPT scores for each participant at T0 and T1. Participants in the IG are numbered from one to nine; those in the CG are numbered from 10 to 18. Lower values represent better performance.