| Literature DB >> 35382412 |
Natali Olaya Mira1, Isabel Cristina Soto Cardona2, Laura Vanesa Martínez Osorno3, Darwin Raúl Mercado Díaz3, Luisa María Henao Ceballos3.
Abstract
Background: Postural stability enables humans to maintain the center of mass of their body within their base of support. Nevertheless, over time, such stability is affected by different factors such as age, repetitive strain, and accidents. Although studies in this field have investigated the effectiveness of hydrotherapy, only a few of them have explored its influence on postural stability, which is reflected in a lack of research that estimates its impact on rehabilitation. Aim: To determine the immediate and final effects of an aquatic routine protocol on the postural stability of elderly subjects.Entities:
Keywords: electromyography; hydrotherapy; postural balance; stabilometry
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 35382412 PMCID: PMC8966656 DOI: 10.25100/cm.v52i3.4537
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Colomb Med (Cali) ISSN: 0120-8322
Figure 1(A) Placement of the electrodes: front (TA, S, and FB muscles) and back (GM, GL, and VM muscles). (B) Area of the muscle coactivation percentage. (C) Baropodometric variables (weight distribution, area of the stabilometric ellipse, and mean plantar pressure).
Immediate effect of the exercise protocol.
| Variables | Measurement | Mean ± SD | Median | Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test | Wilcoxon signed rank test | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P-value | Significance Level | Significant difference | |||||
| Muscle Coactivation | Vastus Medialis vs Biceps Femoris (%) | Before | 42.28 ± 23.12 | 42.95 | 0.004 | 614.0 | No |
| After | 42.68 ± 21.43 | 43.57 | 0.200 | ||||
| Tibialis anterior vs Soleus (%) | Before | 43.25 ± 22.78 | 42.28 | 0.005 | 510.0 | No | |
| After | 41.29 ± 24.46 | 42.95 | 0.002 | ||||
| Tibialis anterior vs Gastrocnemius Medialis (%) | Before | 44.07 ± 22.62 | 43.65 | 0.002 | 33.0 | Yes | |
| After | 39.29 ± 22.13 | 40.64 | 0.007 | ||||
| Tibialis anterior vs Gastrocnemius Lateralis (%) | Before | 44.19 ± 24.45 | 47.35 | 0.000 | 224.0 | No | |
| After | 41.39 ± 24.89 | 41.30 | 0.003 | ||||
| Stabilometry | Anteroposterior weight distribution (%) | Before | 27.15 ± 17.18 | 24.20 | 0.007 | 128.0 | No |
| After | 29.16 ± 17.31 | 27.60 | 0.044 | ||||
| Lateral weight distribution (%) | Before | 20.37 ± 13.83 | 18.10 | 0.001 | 218.0 | No | |
| After | 22.06 ± 15.23 | 19.90 | 0.000 | ||||
| Area of ellipse (cm2) | Before | 14.16 ± 27.40 | 3.99 | 0.000 | 21.0 | Yes | |
| After | 16.52 ± 22.79 | 8.40 | 0.000 | ||||
| Mean pressure (kPa) | Before | 22.71±12,07 | 19.25 | 0.000 | 12.0 | Yes | |
| After | 21.26±11.74 | 19.00 | 0.000 | ||||
Final effect of the exercise protocol.
| Variables | Measurement | Mean ± SD | Median | Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test | Wilcoxon signed rank test | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P-value | Significance Level | Significant difference | |||||
| Muscle Coactivation | Vastus Medialis vs Biceps Femoris (%) | Before | 43.84 ± 22.99 | 42.96 | 0.200 | 925.0 | No |
| After | 40.89 ± 20.05 | 34.13 | 0.123 | ||||
| Tibialis anterior vs Soleus (%) | Before | 44.89 ± 21.12 | 37.13 | 0.042 | 221.0 | No | |
| After | 35.14 ± 24.44 | 40.40 | 0.200 | ||||
| Tibialis anterior vs Gastrocnemius Medialis (%) | Before | 33.55 ± 19.34 | 30.71 | 0.156 | 433.0 | No | |
| After | 42.28 ± 22.39 | 36.11 | 0.052 | ||||
| Tibialis anterior vs Gastrocnemius Lateralis (%) | Before | 41.79 ± 29.03 | 41.71 | 0.015 | 975.0 | No | |
| After | 39.92 ± 25.36 | 41.10 | 0.200 | ||||
| Stabilometry | Anteroposterior weight distribution (%) | Before | 33.13 ± 20.24 | 24.3 | 0.030 | 221.0 | No |
| After | 25.94 ± 15.28 | 23.9 | 0.200 | ||||
| Lateral weight distribution [%] | Before | 27.53 ± 17.31 | 19.7 | 0.034 | 158.0 | No | |
| After | 19.60 ± 16.07 | 14.40 | 0.145 | ||||
| Area of ellipse (cm2) | Before | 3.60 ± 6.70 | 1.02 | 0.001 | 8.0 | Yes | |
| After | 19.18 ± 22.68 | 8.93 | 0.054 | ||||
| Mean pressure (kPa) | Before | 28.64 ± 7.37 | 19.85 | 0.200 | 221.0 | No | |
| After | 16.34 ± 9.47 | 12.90 | 0.138 | ||||
Figura 1(A) Colocación de los electrodos: frontal (músculos TA, S y FB) y posterior (músculos GM, GL y VM). (B) Área del porcentaje de coactivación muscular. (C) Variables baropodométricas (distribución del peso corporal, área de la elipse estabilométrica y presión plantar media).
Efecto inmediato del protocolo de ejercicio.
| Variables | Medición | Media ± DS | Mediana | Prueba Kolmogorov-Smirnov | Prueba de rango con signo de Wilcoxon | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P-valor | Nivel de Significancia | Nivel de Significancia | |||||
| Coactivación Muscular | Vasto Medial vs Biceps Femoral (%) | Antes | 42.28 ± 23.12 | 42.95 | 0.004 | 614.0 | No |
| Después | 42.68 ± 21.43 | 43.57 | 0.200 | ||||
| Tibial anterior vs Soleo (%) | Antes | 43.25 ± 22.78 | 42.28 | 0.005 | 510.0 | No | |
| Después | 41.29 ± 24.46 | 42.95 | 0.002 | ||||
| Tibial anterior vs Gastrocnemio Medial (%) | Antes | 44.07 ± 22.62 | 43.65 | 0.002 | 33.0 | Yes | |
| Después | 39.29 ± 22.13 | 40.64 | 0.007 | ||||
| Tibial anterior vs Gastrocnemio Lateral (%) | Antes | 44.19 ± 24.45 | 47.35 | 0.000 | 224.0 | No | |
| Después | 41.39 ± 24.89 | 41.30 | 0.003 | ||||
| Estabilometría | Distribución anteroposterior del peso (%) | Antes | 27.15 ± 17.18 | 24.20 | 0.007 | 128.0 | No |
| Después | 29.16 ± 17.31 | 27.60 | 0.044 | ||||
| Distribución lateral del peso (%) | Antes | 20.37 ± 13.83 | 18.10 | 0.001 | 218.0 | No | |
| Después | 22.06 ± 15.23 | 19.90 | 0.000 | ||||
| Area de la elipse (cm2) | Antes | 14.16 ± 27.40 | 3.99 | 0.000 | 21.0 | Yes | |
| Después | 16.52 ± 22.79 | 8.40 | 0.000 | ||||
| Presión media (kPa) | Antes | 22.71±12,07 | 19.25 | 0.000 | 12.0 | Yes | |
| Después | 21.26±11.74 | 19.00 | 0.000 | ||||
Efecto final del protocolo de ejercicios.
| Variables | Medición | Media ± DS | Mediana | Prueba Kolmogorov-Smirnov | Prueba de rango con signo de Wilcoxon | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P-valor | Nivel de Significancia | Nivel de Significancia | |||||
| Coactivación Muscular | Vasto Medial vs Biceps Femoral (%) | Antes | 43.84 ± 22.99 | 42.96 | 0.200 | 925.0 | No |
| Después | 40.89 ± 20.05 | 34.13 | 0.123 | ||||
| Tibial anterior vs Soleo (%) | Antes | 44.89 ± 21.12 | 37.13 | 0.042 | 221.0 | No | |
| Después | 35.14 ± 24.44 | 40.40 | 0.200 | ||||
| Tibial anterior vs Gastrocnemio Medial (%) | Antes | 33.55 ± 19.34 | 30.71 | 0.156 | 433.0 | No | |
| Después | 42.28 ± 22.39 | 36.11 | 0.052 | ||||
| Tibial anterior vs Gastrocnemio Lateral (%) | Antes | 41.79 ± 29.03 | 41.71 | 0.015 | 975.0 | No | |
| Después | 39.92 ± 25.36 | 41.10 | 0.200 | ||||
| Estabilometría | Distribución anteroposterior del peso (%) | Antes | 33.13 ± 20.24 | 24.3 | 0.030 | 221.0 | No |
| Después | 25.94 ± 15.28 | 23.9 | 0.200 | ||||
| Distribución lateral del peso (%) | Antes | 27.53 ± 17.31 | 19.7 | 0.034 | 158.0 | No | |
| Después | 19.60 ± 16.07 | 14.40 | 0.145 | ||||
| Area de la elipse (cm2) | Antes | 3.60 ± 6.70 | 1.02 | 0.001 | 8.0 | Yes | |
| Después | 19.18 ± 22.68 | 8.93 | 0.054 | ||||
| Presión media (kPa) | Antes | 28.64 ± 7.37 | 19.85 | 0.200 | 221.0 | No | |
| Después | 16.34 ± 9.47 | 12.90 | 0.138 | ||||
| 1) Why was this study conducted? |
| This study was carried out to test the effect of an aquatic exercise routine on the stability of the elderly by two different methods: stabilometry and electromyography. |
| 2) What were the most relevant results of the study? |
| Both methods revealed immediate improvements in the postural stability of the elderly after the application of the routine aquatic protocol. |
| 3) What do these results contribute? |
| In the decision-making of physiatrists, physiotherapists and other related health personnel when prescribing therapies in the elderly population. They can give priority to those activities that involve aquatic exercises when it is necessary to improve the postural stability of this population in the rehabilitation processes. |
| 1) ¿Por qué se realizó este estudio? |
| Este estudio se llevó a cabo para determinar el efecto de una rutina de ejercicios acuáticos sobre la estabilidad corporal de los ancianos mediante dos métodos diferentes: estabilometría y electromiografía. |
| 2) ¿Cuáles fueron los resultados más relevantes del estudio? |
| Ambos métodos revelaron mejoras inmediatas en la estabilidad postural de los ancianos tras la aplicación del protocolo acuático de rutina. |
| 3¿Qué aportan estos resultados? |
| Ayuda en la toma de decisiones de los fisiatras, fisioterapeutas y demás personal sanitario afín, para prescribir terapias en la población anciana. Pueden dar prioridad a aquellas actividades que impliquen ejercicios acuáticos cuando sea necesario para mejorar la estabilidad postural de esta población en los procesos de rehabilitación. |