4.3 Article

Gait parameters database for young children: The influences of age and walking speed

期刊

CLINICAL BIOMECHANICS
卷 30, 期 6, 页码 572-577

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2015.03.027

关键词

Healthy children; Joint moments; Joint power; Regression analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Reference databases are mandatory in orthopaedics because they enable the detection of gait abnormalities in patients. Such databases rarely include data on children under seven years of age. In young children, gait is principally influenced by age and walking speed. The influence of the age-speed interaction has not been well established. Therefore, the objective of the present study is to propose normative values for biomechanical gait parameters in children taking into account age, walking speed, and the age-speed interaction. Methods: Gait analyses were performed on 106 healthy children over a large age range (between one and seven years of age) during gait trials at a self-selected speed. From these gait cycles, biomechanical parameters, such as the joint angles and joint power of the lower limbs, were computed. Specific peak values and the times of occurrence of each biomechanical gait parameter were identified. Linear regressions are proposed for studying the influence of age, walking speed and the age-speed interaction. Findings: Most of the regressions achieved good accuracy in fitting the curve peaks and times of occurrence, and the normal reference targets of biomechanical parameters could be deduced from these regressions. The biomechanical gait parameters of a pathological case were plotted against the normal reference targets to illustrate the relevance of the proposed targeting method. Interpretation: The normal reference targets for biomechanical gait parameters based on age-speed regressions in a large database might help clinicians detect gait abnormalities in children from one to seven years of age. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.3
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