- Email: [email protected]
Choice of front foot and loading location influences center of pressure sways during tandem standing
eS84
WCPT Congress 2015 / Physiotherapy 2015; Volume 101, Supplement 1 eS26–eS426
the spinal cord, while the external electrodes were connected to voltages reading device. Each patient was connected to the therapeutic currents device with electrodes on the skin, at a height that was parallel to the implanted electrode. Each patient underwent eight measurements, each one in a different arrangement of electrodes or type of current. Results: A preliminary result of this pilot study shows a great match to the theory that was offered by many researchers and clinicians. Interferential current as a treatment to low back pain is the most efficient current for low back in terms of penetration depth, compared to TENS. The tDCS Current has a very weak penetration into the lower spinal cord tissue. Conclusion(s): Research findings so far indicates that for deep pathologies at lower back Interferential is the most effective for penetration depth dimension. Implications: Clinicians should use true Interferential in four electrodes manner for the lower back to treat deep pathologies. Keywords: Electrotherapy; Pain; Electrical stimulation Funding acknowledgements: Israel Physiotherapy Society. Ethics approval: Sheba IRB-Helsinki Committee (International Review Board for human and animal trials). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physio.2015.03.213 Research Report Poster Presentation Number: RR-PO-05-20-Sun Sunday 3 May 2015 13:00 Exhibit halls 401–403 CHOICE OF FRONT FOOT AND LOADING LOCATION INFLUENCES CENTER OF PRESSURE SWAYS DURING TANDEM STANDING I. Arisue 1,2 , H. Fujisawa 3 1 Osaka
Yukioka College of Health Science, Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Health Science, Osaka, Japan; 2 Osaka Electro-Communication University, Graduate School of Biomedical Engineering, Division of Biomedical Engineering, Osaka, Japan; 3 Tohoku Bunka Gakuen University, Department of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medical Science and Welfare, Sendai, Japan Background: Tandem standing (placing one foot in front of the other during standing) is used to evaluate and improve balance performance. Regardless of which foot is put forward during tandem standing, it has been reported that there is no significant difference in the load borne by the right and left lower limbs. However, there is a dearth of studies examining the influence of foot order on the center of pressure (COP) for the loads borne by each of the lower limbs.
Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the effects of loading location and having the right or left foot placed forward during tandem standing, on the COP sways. Methods: Ten healthy young adults provided informed consent, and were included in this study. A three-dimensional motion analysis system (BTS, Inc.) and two force plates (KISLER Inc.) were used to evaluate the amount of loading over the right and left lower limb, COP of the right and left foot (COPr, COPl), and combined COP (COPc). Six conditions were examined to evaluate their effect on the right and left loads: anterior load (AL), centered load (CL), and posterior load (PL) in both the right and left foot forward positions (FFr, FFl). To evaluate the sway amplitude during COPr, COPl, and COPc, the total locus length was calculated (LNGr, LNGl, and LNGc, respectively), along with the variability (standard deviation) of mediolateral sway (SDxr, SDxl, and SDxc, respectively) and anteroposterior sway (SDyr, SDyl, and SDyc, respectively). The Bonferroni method was used for multiple comparisons, and significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: The load ratio (described as FFl/FFr) for AL, CL, and PL was 51.6%/50%, 58.9%/38.4%, and 68.7%/32.5%, respectively. When comparing the effects of the right and left foot being forward, significant differences were observed for LNGr (p = 0.0034), SDyr (p = 0.002), LNGl (p = 0.016), and SDyl (p = 0.0001). When comparing the right and left load borne by the respective limbs, the SDxc of AL vs. PL and CL vs. PL were both significant (p = 0.028, p = 0.042, respectively). Significant differences were also detected in the SDyc of AL vs. CL (p = 0.042), as well as the SDxr of CL vs. PL (p = 0.003). Conclusion(s): The locus length and longitudinal sway were greater for the front foot compared to the back foot during tandem standing. Therefore, the front foot may perform the sway attitude adjustment in the anterior and posterior directions. The medial and lateral sway of the rear foot was greatest for PL, while CL might be causing the back foot to adjust in the lateral direction. Future studies examining the effects of each load on the various muscle groups of the lower limbs are warranted. Implications: The differences in postural sway parameters between the right and left loads, under different loading conditions, reveal unique postural sway control characteristics of the right and left feet, which could have implications for balance rehabilitation. Keywords: Tandem; Center of pressure; Balance Funding acknowledgements: Nil. Ethics approval: Based on the Declaration of Helsinki, we conducted the protection of the subjects, it was ethical consideration description or Agreement. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physio.2015.03.214
WCPT Congress 2015 / Physiotherapy 2015; Volume 101, Supplement 1 eS26–eS426
the spinal cord, while the external electrodes were connected to voltages reading device. Each patient was connected to the therapeutic currents device with electrodes on the skin, at a height that was parallel to the implanted electrode. Each patient underwent eight measurements, each one in a different arrangement of electrodes or type of current. Results: A preliminary result of this pilot study shows a great match to the theory that was offered by many researchers and clinicians. Interferential current as a treatment to low back pain is the most efficient current for low back in terms of penetration depth, compared to TENS. The tDCS Current has a very weak penetration into the lower spinal cord tissue. Conclusion(s): Research findings so far indicates that for deep pathologies at lower back Interferential is the most effective for penetration depth dimension. Implications: Clinicians should use true Interferential in four electrodes manner for the lower back to treat deep pathologies. Keywords: Electrotherapy; Pain; Electrical stimulation Funding acknowledgements: Israel Physiotherapy Society. Ethics approval: Sheba IRB-Helsinki Committee (International Review Board for human and animal trials). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physio.2015.03.213 Research Report Poster Presentation Number: RR-PO-05-20-Sun Sunday 3 May 2015 13:00 Exhibit halls 401–403 CHOICE OF FRONT FOOT AND LOADING LOCATION INFLUENCES CENTER OF PRESSURE SWAYS DURING TANDEM STANDING I. Arisue 1,2 , H. Fujisawa 3 1 Osaka
Yukioka College of Health Science, Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Health Science, Osaka, Japan; 2 Osaka Electro-Communication University, Graduate School of Biomedical Engineering, Division of Biomedical Engineering, Osaka, Japan; 3 Tohoku Bunka Gakuen University, Department of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medical Science and Welfare, Sendai, Japan Background: Tandem standing (placing one foot in front of the other during standing) is used to evaluate and improve balance performance. Regardless of which foot is put forward during tandem standing, it has been reported that there is no significant difference in the load borne by the right and left lower limbs. However, there is a dearth of studies examining the influence of foot order on the center of pressure (COP) for the loads borne by each of the lower limbs.
Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the effects of loading location and having the right or left foot placed forward during tandem standing, on the COP sways. Methods: Ten healthy young adults provided informed consent, and were included in this study. A three-dimensional motion analysis system (BTS, Inc.) and two force plates (KISLER Inc.) were used to evaluate the amount of loading over the right and left lower limb, COP of the right and left foot (COPr, COPl), and combined COP (COPc). Six conditions were examined to evaluate their effect on the right and left loads: anterior load (AL), centered load (CL), and posterior load (PL) in both the right and left foot forward positions (FFr, FFl). To evaluate the sway amplitude during COPr, COPl, and COPc, the total locus length was calculated (LNGr, LNGl, and LNGc, respectively), along with the variability (standard deviation) of mediolateral sway (SDxr, SDxl, and SDxc, respectively) and anteroposterior sway (SDyr, SDyl, and SDyc, respectively). The Bonferroni method was used for multiple comparisons, and significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: The load ratio (described as FFl/FFr) for AL, CL, and PL was 51.6%/50%, 58.9%/38.4%, and 68.7%/32.5%, respectively. When comparing the effects of the right and left foot being forward, significant differences were observed for LNGr (p = 0.0034), SDyr (p = 0.002), LNGl (p = 0.016), and SDyl (p = 0.0001). When comparing the right and left load borne by the respective limbs, the SDxc of AL vs. PL and CL vs. PL were both significant (p = 0.028, p = 0.042, respectively). Significant differences were also detected in the SDyc of AL vs. CL (p = 0.042), as well as the SDxr of CL vs. PL (p = 0.003). Conclusion(s): The locus length and longitudinal sway were greater for the front foot compared to the back foot during tandem standing. Therefore, the front foot may perform the sway attitude adjustment in the anterior and posterior directions. The medial and lateral sway of the rear foot was greatest for PL, while CL might be causing the back foot to adjust in the lateral direction. Future studies examining the effects of each load on the various muscle groups of the lower limbs are warranted. Implications: The differences in postural sway parameters between the right and left loads, under different loading conditions, reveal unique postural sway control characteristics of the right and left feet, which could have implications for balance rehabilitation. Keywords: Tandem; Center of pressure; Balance Funding acknowledgements: Nil. Ethics approval: Based on the Declaration of Helsinki, we conducted the protection of the subjects, it was ethical consideration description or Agreement. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physio.2015.03.214