4.5 Article

Sit to stand in elderly fallers vs non-fallers: new insights from force platform and electromyography data

期刊

AGING CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH
卷 28, 期 5, 页码 871-879

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s40520-015-0486-1

关键词

Sit-to-stand strategies; Fall; Muscular activation; Force platform

资金

  1. Region des Pays de la Loire (France) [RP3AP]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The sit-to-stand movement requires balance control and coordination between the trunk and lower limbs. For these reasons, it is commonly used in clinics for evaluating lower limb muscle function in the elderly. The aim of the present study was to point out re levant biomechanical and neurophysiological sit-to-stand parameters allowing comparison between elderly fallers and non-fallers. Ten elderly fallers and thirty non-fallers performed sit-to-stand movements. Sit-to-stand mechanical (maximal and mean force, impulse) and temporal parameters were measured in the vertical and anteroposterior axes using force platforms. Activity of rectus femoris, vastus lateralis, and gastrocnemius lateralis muscles was bilaterally recorded by surface electromyography. Time to realize sit-to-stand movements was significantly longer in elderly fallers compared to non-fallers (p < 0.05). In the same way, maximal vertical force and mean posterior force applied on force platform were significantly lower (p < 0.05) in fallers than in non-fallers individual. At muscular activity level, results showed a main statistical difference in gastrocnemius lateralis muscle activity patterns between faller and non-faller groups. Vertical and anteroposterior data from force platform, and gastrocnemius lateralis muscle activity determined during sit-to-stand movement are the most relevant parameters to differentiate fallers and non-fallers. Moreover, these factors highlight different strategies to rise from a chair between faller and non-faller group, suggesting that fallers would constantly adjust their control balance during the sit-to-stand movement.

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

4.5
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