4.6 Article

Clinical Relevance of a Balance Training Program on Liver Transplant Patients. A Randomized Controlled Trial

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION
卷 103, 期 5, 页码 965-972

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0000000000002415

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Although some studies have reported significant improvements in physical function and strength after training programs on liver transplant (LT) recipients, there is a lack of knowledge on how it affects in static and dynamic balance, being an important part of these participants' tasks development. The aim of the study was to determine the effects of a 6-month multicomponent circuit training program on static and dynamic balance in LT participants. Methods. Fifty-four participants were randomized at 6 months after LT into 2 groups: exercise (EXER) group and control (CONTROL) group, with repeat testing at 6 (baseline) and 12 months after LT. The intervention consisted of a multicomponent training, including balance, strength, endurance, and flexibility training, with exercises arranged in a circuit setup and a moderate intensity with high perceived exertion. Training sessions were performed in the hospital facilities with qualified trainers. To determine differences over time between EXER and CONTROL, mixed-regression linear models with subject variable as random factor and variables of treatment duration, type, and interaction as predictors were used. Results. The EXER group showed significant differences (P < 0.05) compared with CONTROL in all variables of static and dynamic balance, hip strength (49% versus 13%), agility (-16% versus -1%), and flexibility (78% versus -26%). Adherence to the intervention was 94%, and 80% of the participants continued voluntarily training after the 6 months. Conclusions. This study demonstrated that a multicomponent circuit training program at a moderate intensity with high perceived exertion could reduce the probability of injuries because it improves balance on LT recipients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据