ORIGINAL PAPER
Influence of age on kinematic analysis of functional reach test: a cross-sectional study
1
Research Group on Methodology, Methods, Models and Outcomes of Health and Social
Sciences, Faculty of Health Science and Welfare, Centre for Health and Social Care Research,
University of Vic – Central University of Catalonia, Vic, Spain
2
Universidad de Málaga, Departamento de Fisioterapia, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica
de Málaga, Málaga, Spain
3
School of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, Australia
Submission date: 2019-10-16
Acceptance date: 2020-06-01
Publication date: 2020-08-27
Hum Mov. 2021;22(3):77-83
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Purpose:
Ageing is associated with deterioration and alterations in physical function, affecting community mobility, balance, skills, or daily living activities. The aim of the study was to kinematically analyse the influence of age on balance in young and older adults, as well as to compare the kinematics of the trunk and lumbar regions during Functional Reach Test (FRT).
Methods:
The cross-sectional study involved 5 healthy older adults and 6 healthy young adults. Each participant performed FRT instrumentalized with 2 inertial sensors attached in the trunk (T7) and lumbar (L5-S2) regions. Direct (time and displacement) and indirect (velocity and acceleration) kinematic variables, as well as mid-range achieved in FRT were analysed.
Results:
The participants’ mean age was 73.04 ± 3.58 years among the older adults and 23.5 ± 1.52 years among the young adults. Significant differences in time (trunk: –7.61 ± 2.14 s; lumbar: –6.40 ± 1.06 s) and displacement (trunk: 16.33 ± 4.21°) were identified; in the lumbar region, no significant displacement differences were observed (p > 0.05). Similarly, in the partial intervals analysed during FRT (from starting position to maximum displacement/imbalance, and return to the initial position), significant differences (p < 0.05) were revealed in all direct and indirect variables.
Conclusions:
When comparing FRT performance in healthy young and elderly subjects from a kinematic point of view, significant differences were found in the vast majority of kinematic variables analysed in both lumbar and trunk region.
Ageing is associated with deterioration and alterations in physical function, affecting community mobility, balance, skills, or daily living activities. The aim of the study was to kinematically analyse the influence of age on balance in young and older adults, as well as to compare the kinematics of the trunk and lumbar regions during Functional Reach Test (FRT).
Methods:
The cross-sectional study involved 5 healthy older adults and 6 healthy young adults. Each participant performed FRT instrumentalized with 2 inertial sensors attached in the trunk (T7) and lumbar (L5-S2) regions. Direct (time and displacement) and indirect (velocity and acceleration) kinematic variables, as well as mid-range achieved in FRT were analysed.
Results:
The participants’ mean age was 73.04 ± 3.58 years among the older adults and 23.5 ± 1.52 years among the young adults. Significant differences in time (trunk: –7.61 ± 2.14 s; lumbar: –6.40 ± 1.06 s) and displacement (trunk: 16.33 ± 4.21°) were identified; in the lumbar region, no significant displacement differences were observed (p > 0.05). Similarly, in the partial intervals analysed during FRT (from starting position to maximum displacement/imbalance, and return to the initial position), significant differences (p < 0.05) were revealed in all direct and indirect variables.
Conclusions:
When comparing FRT performance in healthy young and elderly subjects from a kinematic point of view, significant differences were found in the vast majority of kinematic variables analysed in both lumbar and trunk region.
REFERENCES (19)
1.
De Vries EA, Caljouw SR, Coppens MJM, Postema K, Verkerke GJ, Lamoth CJC. Differences between young and older adults in the control of weight shifting within the surface of support. PLoS One. 2014;9(6):e98494; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0098494.
2.
Maranesi E, Ghetti G, Rabini RA, Fioretti S. Functional reach test: movement strategies in diabetic subjects. Gait Posture. 2014;39(1):501–505; doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2013.08.035.
3.
Duncan PW, Weiner DK, Chandler J, Studenski S. Functional reach: a new clinical measure of balance. J Gerontol. 1990;45(6):M192–M197; doi: 10.1093/geronj/45.6.m192.
4.
Costarella M, Monteleone L, Steindler R, Zuccaro SM. Decline of physical and cognitive conditions in the elderly measured through the functional reach test and the mini-mental state examination. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2010;50(3):332–337; doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2009.05.013.
5.
Little C, Lee JB, James DA, Davison K. An evaluation of inertial sensor technology in the discrimination of human gait. J Sports Sci. 2013;31(12):1312–1318; doi: 10.1080/02640414.2013.779739.
6.
Perez-Cruzado D, González-Sánchez M, Cuesta-Vargas AI. Parameterization and reliability of single-leg balance test assessed with inertial sensors in stroke survivors: a cross-sectional study. Biomed Eng Online. 2014;13:127; doi: 10.1186/1475-925X-13-127.
7.
Volkman KG, Stergiou N, Stuberg W, Blanke D, Stoner J. Methods to improve the reliability of the functional reach test in children and adolescents with typical development. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2007;19(1):20–27; doi: 10.1097/01.pep.0000247173.14969.5a.
8.
Howcroft J, Kofman J, Lemaire ED. Review of fall risk assessment in geriatric populations using inertial sensors. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2013;10(1):91; doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-10-91.
9.
Mancini M, Salarian A, Carlson-Kuhta P, Zampieri C, King L, Chiari L, et al. ISway: a sensitive, valid and reliable measure of postural control. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2012;9(1):59; doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-9-59.
10.
Cavanaugh JT, Shinberg M, Ray L, Shipp KM, Kuchibhatla M, Schenkman M. Kinematic characterization of standing reach: comparison of younger vs. older subjects. Clin Biomech. 1999;14(4):271–279; doi: 10.1016/S0268-0033(98)00074-6.
11.
Kozak K, Ashton-Miller JA, Alexander NB. The effect of age and movement speed on maximum forward reach from an elevated surface: a study in healthy women. Clin Biomech. 2003;18(3):190–196; doi: 10.1016/s0268-0033(02)00205-x.
12.
Kato T, Yamamoto S, Miyoshi T, Nakazawa K, Masani K, Nozaki D. Anti-phase action between the angular accelerations of trunk and leg is reduced in the elderly. Gait Posture. 2014;40(1):107–112; doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2014.03.006.
13.
Nagai K, Yamada M, Uemura K, Yamada Y, Ichihashi N, Tsuboyama T. Differences in muscle coactivation during postural control between healthy older and young adults. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2011;53(3):338–343; doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2011.01.003.
14.
Norris B, Medley A. The effect of context and age on functional reach performance in healthy adults aged 21 to 94 years. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2011;34(2):82–87; doi: 10.1519/JPT.0b013e31820aac11.
15.
Okubo Y, Osuka Y, Jung S, Rafael F, Tsujimoto T, Aiba T, et al. Walking can be more effective than balance training in fall prevention among community-dwelling older adults. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2016;16(1):118–125; doi: 10.1111/ggi.12444.
16.
Dite W, Temple VA. A clinical test of stepping and change of direction to identify multiple falling older adults. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83(11):1566–1571; doi: 10.1053/apmr.2002.35469.
17.
Wolf SL, Catlin PA, Gage K, Gurucharri K, Robertson R, Stephen K. Establishing the reliability and validity of measurements of walking time using the Emory Functional Ambulation Profile. Phys Ther. 1999;79(12):1122–1133; doi: 10.1093/ptj/79.12.1122.
18.
Muramoto A, Imagama S, Ito Z, Hirano K, Ishiguro N, Hasegawa Y. Physical performance tests are useful for evaluating and monitoring the severity of locomotive syndrome. J Orthop Sci. 2012;17(6):782–788; doi: 10.1007/s00776-012-0283-z.
19.
Liao C-F, Lin S-I. Effects of different movement strategies on forward reach distance. Gait Posture. 2008;28(1):16–23; doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2007.09.009.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 1899-1955 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
