4.3 Article

Functional community ambulation requirements in incomplete spinal cord injured subjects

期刊

SPINAL CORD
卷 39, 期 6, 页码 327-335

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.sc.3101167

关键词

spinal cord injury; walking velocity; oxygen uptake; community ambulator

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study design: A group of people with incomplete spinal cord injuries (SCI) were evaluated and compared with able-bodied individuals during several walking conditions. Objectives: To evaluate the functional community ambulation and estimated energy expenditure in persons with incomplete SCI and able-bodied individuals. Methods: A list of criteria was used to evaluate functional community ambulation among participants. Physiological variables, such as the heart rate, oxygen uptake and the lactate concentration, were also measured. Results: Three of nine incomplete SCI subjects and all able-bodied subjects were able to meet all the criteria measured. The required velocity to safely cross an intersection was the criterion that the incomplete SCI group had the most difficulty reaching. The able-bodied subjects had a comfortable walking velocity twice that of the incomplete SCI subjects' preferred velocity. When walking at the same velocity (incomplete SCI subjects' preferred velocity), the incomplete SCI subjects had a rate of oxygen uptake 26% greater than the healthy subjects and were 200% less efficient. The lactate concentration also proved to be a useful tool when evaluating the incomplete SCI subjects' walking efficiency. The incomplete SCI subjects lactate concentration increased after walking at their preferred velocity, meaning that the anaerobic pathways were used to meet energy demands. Conclusion: Rehabilitation centers should adapt their evaluation forms and increase their criteria requirements to more suitable criteria that are found in the SCI patient's community. The physiological cost should also be taken into consideration when evaluating the SCI patient's functional ambulation.

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