Gait & posture · 2024
Postural change, gait, and physical function in older adults.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Murphy Eryn N, An Yong Woo, Lee Sang-Rok, Wood Robert H
Аннотация
UNLABELLED: In a more clinical setting, abrupt posture change may be used to determine the presence of orthostatic hypotension, a hemodynamic response with relationships to physical function. Certain gait features and physical function performance are also associated with risk of falling in older adults. However, the extent to which posture change is associated with subsequent gait and physical function has received little attention in the literature. This study aims to determine the effects of posture change on spatiotemporal parameters of gait and Timed Up-and-Go (TUG) performance.
METHODS: Forty-two volunteers (age 73.21 ± 6.22 years) participated in the study. A custom Tekscan Strideway (Tekscan, Boston, MA.) gait system was used to measure gait velocity (VEL), cadence (CAD), stride length (SL), and percent of time spent in active propulsion (AP). Dependent t-tests were used to compare TUG time, VEL, CAD, SL and AP after at least 10 mins of seated rest and supine rest.
RESULTS: Time to complete the TUG was significantly slower after supine rest compared to seated (11.47 ± 0.51 and 10.01 ± 0.33 s, respectively, p<0.001); VEL was significantly slower after supine rest compared to seated (0.888 ± 0.042 and 1.049 ± 0.033 m/s, respectively, p=0.003); CAD was significantly slower after supine rest compared to seated (111.21 ± 2.87 and 120.97 ± 2.56spm, respectively, p=0.001); and AP was significantly lower after supine rest compared to seated (56.87 ± 4.76 and 70.79 ± 4.05 %, respectively, p<0.001). No significant differences were detected in stride length between conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: Among this sample of older adults, standing from a supine posture is associated with spatiotemporal gait parameters consistent with a risk for falling and aging. Additionally, TUG performance worsens significantly after supine rest. Future studies could explore the sensitivity and specificity of falls risk screening after supine rest.
METHODS: Forty-two volunteers (age 73.21 ± 6.22 years) participated in the study. A custom Tekscan Strideway (Tekscan, Boston, MA.) gait system was used to measure gait velocity (VEL), cadence (CAD), stride length (SL), and percent of time spent in active propulsion (AP). Dependent t-tests were used to compare TUG time, VEL, CAD, SL and AP after at least 10 mins of seated rest and supine rest.
RESULTS: Time to complete the TUG was significantly slower after supine rest compared to seated (11.47 ± 0.51 and 10.01 ± 0.33 s, respectively, p<0.001); VEL was significantly slower after supine rest compared to seated (0.888 ± 0.042 and 1.049 ± 0.033 m/s, respectively, p=0.003); CAD was significantly slower after supine rest compared to seated (111.21 ± 2.87 and 120.97 ± 2.56spm, respectively, p=0.001); and AP was significantly lower after supine rest compared to seated (56.87 ± 4.76 and 70.79 ± 4.05 %, respectively, p<0.001). No significant differences were detected in stride length between conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: Among this sample of older adults, standing from a supine posture is associated with spatiotemporal gait parameters consistent with a risk for falling and aging. Additionally, TUG performance worsens significantly after supine rest. Future studies could explore the sensitivity and specificity of falls risk screening after supine rest.