4.4 Article

Obese elderly women exhibit low postural stability: a novel three-dimensional evaluation system

期刊

CLINICS
卷 67, 期 5, 页码 475-481

出版社

HOSPITAL CLINICAS, UNIV SAO PAULO
DOI: 10.6061/clinics/2012(05)12

关键词

Elderly; Obesity; Postural Balance; Sensory Deprivation; Three-Dimensional System

资金

  1. FAEPA
  2. CAPES

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the multisegmental static postural balance of active eutrophic and obese elderly women using a three-dimensional system under different sensory conditions. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted on 31 elderly women (16 eutrophic and 15 obese) aged 65 to 75 years. The following anthropometric measurements were obtained: weight, height, waist and hip circumference, and handgrip strength. The physical activity level was evaluated using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire. Body composition was measured using the deuterium oxide dilution technique. The Polhemus (R) Patriot (three-dimensional) equipment was used to measure the parameters of postural balance along the anteroposterior and laterolateral axes. The data acquisition involved one trial of 60 s to test the limit of stability and four trials of 90 s each under the following conditions: (1) eyes open, stable surface; (2) eyes closed, stable surface; (3) eyes open, unstable surface; and (4) eyes closed, unstable surface. RESULTS: For the limit of stability, significant differences were observed in the maximum anteroposterior and laterolateral displacement (p<0.01) and in the parameter maximum anteroposterior displacement in the eyes closed stable surface condition (p<0.01) and maximum anteroposterior and laterolateral displacement in the eyes open unstable surface (p<0.01 and p = 0.03) and eyes closed unstable surface (p<0.01 and p<0.01) conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Obese elderly women exhibited a lower stability limit (lower sway area) compared with eutrophic women, leaving them more vulnerable to falls.

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

4.4
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