4.2 Article

Effects of modified long stick exercise on hyperkyphosis, muscle imbalance and balance control in elderly community-dwelling women with hyperkyphosis

期刊

出版社

IOS PRESS
DOI: 10.3233/BMR-220350

关键词

Kyphosis; exercise training; gerontology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This research investigated the effects of a modified long stick exercise on hyperkyphosis, muscle imbalance, and balance control in elderly community-dwelling women with hyperkyphosis. The results showed that the experimental group demonstrated improvements in all outcomes, with significantly greater improvements compared to the control group.
BACKGROUND: Hyperkyphosis is a condition often seen in older women. This condition causes muscle imbalance in the upper back of the body and impacts balance control. Long stick exercise (LSE) is an exercise programme for the elderly that improves muscle strength and balance control. OBJECTIVE: This research was designed to investigate the effects of a modified LSE on hyperkyphosis, muscle imbalance and balance control in elderly community-dwelling women with hyperkyphosis. METHODS: Twenty-eight elderly women with hyperkyphosis were divided into experimental and control groups. The experimental group was assigned to practice the modified LSE programme 30-40 minutes/day, 3 days/week, for 12 weeks. Hyperkyphosis, pectoralis minor length, muscle strength, functional reach test (FRT) and timed up and go test (TUG) were obtained at baseline, after 6 weeks and after 12 weeks of exercise. RESULTS: The experimental group demonstrated improved hyperkyphosis, pectoralis minor length, muscle strength, FRT, and TUG after 12 weeks of training. Moreover, the experimental group exhibited significantly greater improvements in all outcomes than the control group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The modified LSE programme is an alternative exercise that is easy and low-impact for improving hyperkyphosis, muscle imbalance, and balance control in elderly community-dwelling women with hyperkyphosis.

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

4.2
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