4.5 Article

Ankle ROM and stiffness measured at rest and during gait in individuals with and without diabetic sensory neuropathy

期刊

GAIT & POSTURE
卷 24, 期 3, 页码 295-301

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2005.10.004

关键词

ankle ROM; stiffness; diabetes; gait; loading

资金

  1. NINR NIH HHS [R01 NR07721-03, R01 NR007721-03, R01 NR007721, R01 NR007721-04] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

introduction: The purpose of our study was to examine the relationship between ankle dorsiflexion (DF) range of motion (ROM) and stiffness measured at rest (passively) and plantar loading during gait in individuals with and without diabetes mellitus (DM) and sensory neuropathy. Specifically, we sought to address three questions for this at-risk patient population: (1) Does peak passive DF ROM predict ankle DF ROM used during gait? (2) Does passive ankle stiffness predict ankle stiffness used during gait? (3) Are any of the passive or gait-related ankle measures associated with plantar loading? Methods: Ten subjects with DM and 10 age and gender matched non-diabetic control subjects participated in this study. Passive ankle DF ROM and stiffness were measured with the Iowa Ankle ROM device. Kinematic, kinetic and plantar pressure data were collected as subjects walked at 0.89 m/s. Results: We found that subjects with DM have reduced passive ankle DF ROM and increased stiffness compared to non-diabetic control subjects, however, subjects with DM demonstrated ankle motion, stiffness and plantar pressures, similar to control subjects, while walking at the identical speed, 0.89 m/s (2 mph). These data indicate that clinical measures of heel cord tightness and stiffness do not represent ankle motion or stiffness utilized during gait. Our findings suggest that subjects with DM utilize strategies such as shortening their stride length and reducing their push-off power to modulate plantar loading. (C) 2005 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.5
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