Gait & posture · 2025
Effects of arch support on gait and postural control in middle-aged and older adults.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Jiang Leyi, Hong Yinglu, He Gaoyuan, Zhou Yuncong, Bao Dapeng, Zhou Junhong
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: In this study, we examined the effects of arch support on middle-aged and older adults' gait and postural control.
METHODS: Forty-five middle-aged and older adults completed four study visits. On the first visit, the physical characteristics of each participant were determined. On each of the other three visits, participants completed the protocol under three different conditions: arch supportive footwear (SF), non-supportive footwear (NF), and barefoot (BF). Then participants first performed the single-leg stance test (SLST) and standing postural sway test (SPST). This was followed by a walking assessment (WA), with walking data recorded using wireless sensors. Finally, participants completed a 5-minute energy cost of walking test (CWT) on a treadmill.
RESULTS: It was observed that compared to BF, SF had significantly longer time on SLST in CF condition (p = 0.036). However, for COP area in EC condition and mean velocity of COP in EO or EC condition, SF participants had significantly increased compared to BF (p < 0.046). In addition, SF had significantly higher energy cost of walking compared to BF (p < 0.033).
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that arch support can help single leg standing balance and improve walking performance by increasing stride length.
METHODS: Forty-five middle-aged and older adults completed four study visits. On the first visit, the physical characteristics of each participant were determined. On each of the other three visits, participants completed the protocol under three different conditions: arch supportive footwear (SF), non-supportive footwear (NF), and barefoot (BF). Then participants first performed the single-leg stance test (SLST) and standing postural sway test (SPST). This was followed by a walking assessment (WA), with walking data recorded using wireless sensors. Finally, participants completed a 5-minute energy cost of walking test (CWT) on a treadmill.
RESULTS: It was observed that compared to BF, SF had significantly longer time on SLST in CF condition (p = 0.036). However, for COP area in EC condition and mean velocity of COP in EO or EC condition, SF participants had significantly increased compared to BF (p < 0.046). In addition, SF had significantly higher energy cost of walking compared to BF (p < 0.033).
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that arch support can help single leg standing balance and improve walking performance by increasing stride length.