4.6 Article

Changes in flexed posture, musculoskeletal impairments, and physical performance after group exercise in community-dwelling older women

期刊

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.033

关键词

aging; exercise; kyphosis; posture; rehabilitation

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [M01 RR-00079] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine whether improvements in flexed posture, strength, range of motion (ROM), and physical performance would be observed after 12 weeks of group exercise in older women who because of age are prone to flexed posture and impaired physical function. Design: Pretest-posttest of outcome measures. Setting: Outpatient academic medical center. Participants: Twenty-one women with thoracic kyphosis 50 degrees or greater. Intervention: Multidimensional group exercise performed 2 times a week for 12 weeks. Main Outcome Measures: Primary dependent measures flexed posture included kyphosis, forward head, and height. Other dependent measures included spinal extensor muscle strength; shoulder, hip, and knee ROM; balance; modified Physical Performance Test (PPT); jug test; and gait speed. Results: Baseline kyphosis was 57 degrees +/- 5.0 degrees, and age was 72.0 +/- 4.2 years. There were significant improvements in usual (-6 degrees +/- 3 degrees) and best kyphosis (-5 degrees +/- 3 degrees) (P <.001), spinal extensor muscle strength (21%+/- 13% of peak torque/body weight, P <.001), popliteal angle (right, 7 degrees +/- 7 degrees; left, 9 degrees +/- 10 degrees; P <.001), modified PPT (2 +/- 2 points, P <.001), and jug test (- 1.4 +/- 1.3s, P <.001). Age and modified PPT at baseline correlated with change in kyphosis (r=0.5, P=.02; r=.42, P=.055, respectively). Conclusions: Multidimensional group exercise reduced measured kyphosis and improved strength, ROM, and physical performance. This study provides a promising exercise intervention that may improve posture and physical performance in older women with flexed posture.

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