- Email: [email protected]
Postural stability does not distinguish between active elderly fallers and nonfallers
Gait & Posture xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Gait & Posture journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gaitpost
P99
Postural stability does not distinguish between active elderly fallers and nonfallers Zdenek Svoboda, Marketa Hamrikova, Lucia Bizovska, Miroslav Janura Palacky University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic
1. Introduction Time behaviour measurements of the centre of pressure of a person positioned on a force plate is one of the most commonly used tool to investigate a balance. However, the findings of the studies focused on the relationship between postural stability and fall risk are not uniform. The aim of this study was to assess the ability of postural stability assessment to distinguish between elderly nonfallers and fallers.
eyes, firm and foam surface). In addition, the Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale questionnaire was fulfilled by the participants. Falls occurrence was recorded using prospective daily recording with a minimum of two-week telephone interview for a period of one year. After that, participants were divided into three groups as follows: nonfallers (N), fallers (F) – one fall occurrence in one year, multiple fallers (MF) – two or more fall occurrences during one year.
2. Research Question
4. Results
Is there any difference in a mean velocity of centre of pressure during quiet stance among elderly fallers and nonfallers?
No significant difference in centre of pressure velocity between N, F and MF groups was found in all measured conditions and directions (Table 1). No significant difference was found for ABC scale (N: 86.0 ± 13.3, F: 85.2 ± 12.3, MF: 79.7 ± 17.6).
3. Methods A prospective study design was used. The observed group consisted of 151 participants with age 71.2 ± 6.6 years, height 162.8 ± 7.7 cm and body weight 76.4 ± 13.4 kg. At the baseline, velocity of centre of pressure in medial-lateral and anterior-posterior direction during 30 s of quiet standing was assessed in four conditions (open eyes and closed
5. Discussion Our findings showed no difference in postural stability between groups with and without fall occurrence. One possible explanation is the high level of physical functioning of observed individuals, which
Table 1
Vision
Eyes Open
Surface
Firm Foam
Eyes Closed
Firm Foam
Direction
ML AP ML AP ML AP ML AP
N (n = 92)
F (n = 41)
MF (n = 18)
p values
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
N vs. F
N vs. MF
F vs. MF
4.5 10.8 11.9 22.8 6.2 17.7 19.4 44.9
1.6 4.4 4.6 10.2 2.8 9.4 7.6 16.5
4.6 10.7 11.0 21.0 5.5 15.5 18.6 40.4
1.7 4.5 3.4 7.5 2.1 6.9 6.3 15.8
4.9 10.5 12.1 22.1 7.3 18.5 21.4 45.7
3.7 4.9 6.4 8.4 6.0 10.1 12.6 22.6
0.877 0.919 0.428 0.479 0.287 0.332 0.751 0.110
0.640 0.605 0.997 0.904 0.634 0.716 0.847 0.771
0.610 0.802 0.685 0.697 0.151 0.363 0.632 0.451
N – nonfallers, F – subjects with 1 fall, MF – subjects with two or more falls, SD – standard deviation, ML – medial-lateral direction, AP – anterior-posterior direction.
⁎
Corresponding author.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2017.06.453
0966-6362/ © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Gait & Posture xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Z. Svoboda et al.
Reference
was shown by ABC scale. Scientific studies also suggest that postural control in relation to fall risk as measured during quiet stance must be quantified and combined with other risk factors for falls such as drug side effects, muscle weakness, visual acuity, temporary illness, locomotor instability and environmental factors [1].
[1] Muir, PLOS ONE 8 (8) (2013) e70566.
2
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Gait & Posture journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gaitpost
P99
Postural stability does not distinguish between active elderly fallers and nonfallers Zdenek Svoboda, Marketa Hamrikova, Lucia Bizovska, Miroslav Janura Palacky University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic
1. Introduction Time behaviour measurements of the centre of pressure of a person positioned on a force plate is one of the most commonly used tool to investigate a balance. However, the findings of the studies focused on the relationship between postural stability and fall risk are not uniform. The aim of this study was to assess the ability of postural stability assessment to distinguish between elderly nonfallers and fallers.
eyes, firm and foam surface). In addition, the Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale questionnaire was fulfilled by the participants. Falls occurrence was recorded using prospective daily recording with a minimum of two-week telephone interview for a period of one year. After that, participants were divided into three groups as follows: nonfallers (N), fallers (F) – one fall occurrence in one year, multiple fallers (MF) – two or more fall occurrences during one year.
2. Research Question
4. Results
Is there any difference in a mean velocity of centre of pressure during quiet stance among elderly fallers and nonfallers?
No significant difference in centre of pressure velocity between N, F and MF groups was found in all measured conditions and directions (Table 1). No significant difference was found for ABC scale (N: 86.0 ± 13.3, F: 85.2 ± 12.3, MF: 79.7 ± 17.6).
3. Methods A prospective study design was used. The observed group consisted of 151 participants with age 71.2 ± 6.6 years, height 162.8 ± 7.7 cm and body weight 76.4 ± 13.4 kg. At the baseline, velocity of centre of pressure in medial-lateral and anterior-posterior direction during 30 s of quiet standing was assessed in four conditions (open eyes and closed
5. Discussion Our findings showed no difference in postural stability between groups with and without fall occurrence. One possible explanation is the high level of physical functioning of observed individuals, which
Table 1
Vision
Eyes Open
Surface
Firm Foam
Eyes Closed
Firm Foam
Direction
ML AP ML AP ML AP ML AP
N (n = 92)
F (n = 41)
MF (n = 18)
p values
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
N vs. F
N vs. MF
F vs. MF
4.5 10.8 11.9 22.8 6.2 17.7 19.4 44.9
1.6 4.4 4.6 10.2 2.8 9.4 7.6 16.5
4.6 10.7 11.0 21.0 5.5 15.5 18.6 40.4
1.7 4.5 3.4 7.5 2.1 6.9 6.3 15.8
4.9 10.5 12.1 22.1 7.3 18.5 21.4 45.7
3.7 4.9 6.4 8.4 6.0 10.1 12.6 22.6
0.877 0.919 0.428 0.479 0.287 0.332 0.751 0.110
0.640 0.605 0.997 0.904 0.634 0.716 0.847 0.771
0.610 0.802 0.685 0.697 0.151 0.363 0.632 0.451
N – nonfallers, F – subjects with 1 fall, MF – subjects with two or more falls, SD – standard deviation, ML – medial-lateral direction, AP – anterior-posterior direction.
⁎
Corresponding author.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2017.06.453
0966-6362/ © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Gait & Posture xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Z. Svoboda et al.
Reference
was shown by ABC scale. Scientific studies also suggest that postural control in relation to fall risk as measured during quiet stance must be quantified and combined with other risk factors for falls such as drug side effects, muscle weakness, visual acuity, temporary illness, locomotor instability and environmental factors [1].
[1] Muir, PLOS ONE 8 (8) (2013) e70566.
2