4.3 Article

Level walking and ambulatory capacity in persons with incomplete spinal cord injury: relationship with muscle strength

期刊

SPINAL CORD
卷 42, 期 3, 页码 156-162

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.sc.3101569

关键词

spinal cord injury; gait; locomotion; muscle strength; manual muscle test

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [63617] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study design: Prospective analysis of relationships. Objectives: ( 1) To quantify the relationship between individual lower extremity muscle strength and functional walking measures and ( 2) to determine whether a multiple regression model incorporating lower extremity muscle strength could predict the performance of functional walking measures in persons with incomplete spinal cord injury (ISCI) living in the community. Setting: Tertiary rehabilitation center, Vancouver, Canada. Methods: In all, 22 subjects with ISCI participated. The relationship between functional walking measures ( gait speed, 6-min-walk distance, and ambulatory capacity) and muscle strength (manual tests of hip flexors/extensors/abductors, knee flexors/extensors, ankle dorsi flexors/plantarflexors, and great toe extensors) were measured by Pearson's correlation and regression procedures. Results: For both the more and less affected sides, hip flexors, hip extensors, and hip abductors produced the highest correlations with the three functional measures. The less affected hip flexor strength explained more than 50% of the variance in gait speed and 6-min-walk distance while the less affected hip extensor strength explained up to 64% of the variance in ambulatory capacity. For all three functional measures, the strength of the less affected limb was more important than that of the more affected limb. Conclusions: Lower extremity muscle strength, in particular that of hip flexors, hip extensors, and hip abductors, is an important determinant of functional walking performance.

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