1st Joint ESMAC-GCMAS Meeting - Análise de Marcha

More documents

Recommendations

Info

situated between the safety harness and the overhead track was used to measure the forces exerted through the harness. The horizontal displacement of the heel marker at the moment of contact with the floor was used to define the onset of a slip event. Slip termination was defined when the heel marker stopped its forward displacement or the contralateral leg contacted the ground. The determination of a fall was made if the load cell data revealed that the peak force exerted through the harness was greater than 25% of body weight. Slip distance and the peak heel velocity during the slip event were compared between shoe conditions using independent t-tests. Fall probability was compared between shoe conditions using a Chi-square test. Results On average, the self-selected fast walking speed of the hard and soft soled shoe groups were similar (Table 1). All subjects in both groups experienced a slip event. Eight of twenty subjects (40%) in the hard soled shoe group experienced a fall, while six of the twenty subjects (30%) in the soft soled shoe group experinced a fall (Table 2). The proportion of fall events in the hard soled shoe group was not statistically different than the proportion of fall events in the soft soled shoe group (X 2 = 0.440, P = 0.51). In addition, no statistically significant differences were observed between shoe groups for slip distance or average slip velocity (Table 1). Table 1. Slip characteristics between groups. Mean (SD) Hard Shoe Group Soft Shoe Group P value Walking velocity (m/sec) 1.9 (0.2) 1.9 (0.2) 0.10 Slip distance (cm) 39.9 (28.7) 40.8 (30.9) 0.92 Slip velocity (cm/sec) 187.5 (98.1) 203.2 (109.4) 0.64 Table 2. Fall proportions between groups Fall Recovery Total Hard Shoe Group 8 (40%) 12 (60%) 20 Soft Shoe Group 6 (30%) 14 (70%) 20 Discussion The results of this study demonstrate that the probability of a slip-induced fall was not influenced by footwear sole hardness. In particular, no difference in the proportion of fall events between two shoe groups was observed. In addition, slip parameters thought to influence fall potential (i.e., slip distance and velocity) did not differ between shoe groups. These findings do not support the premise that persons wearing harder soled shoes are at greater risk for a fall once a slip is initiated. It is likely that recovery from a slip event is more related to one’s ability to generate an effective response strategy. References [1] Courtney TK, Sorock GS, Manning DP, Collins JW, Holbein-Jenny M. (2001), Ergonomics, 44, 1118-1137. [2] Brady RA, Pavol MJ, Owings TM, Grabiner MD. (2000), Journal of Biomechanics, 33, 803-808. [3] You JY, Chou YL, Lin CJ, Su FC. (2001), Clinical Biomechanics, 16, 167-173. [4] Lockhart TE, Kim S. (2006), Gait & Posture, in press. [5] Cham R, Redfern MS. (2001), Journal of Biomechanics, 34, 1439-1445. [6] Redfern MS, Bidanda B. (1994), Ergonomics, 37, 511-524. - 169 -
O-50 GAIT ANALYSIS IN CHILDREN TREATED NONOPERATIVELY FOR CLUBFOOT: PHYSIOTHERAPY VS PONSETI CASTING Lori Karol, M.D. 1 , Ron El-Hawary, M.D. 2 , Kelly Jeans, M.S. 1 1 Texas Scottish Rite Hospital Dallas, Texas, United States of America 2 Isaac Walton Killam Health Center, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada Summary/Conclusions There is no significant difference in the likelihood of normal sagittal plane ankle kinematics or normal gait between 2 yr old children with clubfeet treated by either physical therapy (PT) or Ponseti casting. While PT patients are more likely to walk in some degree of equinus, those who have undergone the Ponseti protocol have a higher prevalence of increased stance phase ankle dorsiflexion. Introduction Reports of ankle stiffness, loss of ankle power, knee hyperextension, and internal rotation 10 yrs after posteromedial release for clubfeet[1-3] led our institution to support nonoperative treatment. [4] The French PT technique consists of daily manipulation and taping of the infant’s foot. [5,6] The Ponseti technique consists of weekly casts to externally rotate the foot about the talar head, usually accompanied by tendoachilles release at 6 wks, with use of an abduction bar nightly for 3 yrs. [7] As we offer both programs, the purpose of this study was to compare gait analysis results in 2 yr olds after successful treatment with PT or Ponseti casting. Statement of Clinical Significance PT and Ponseti casting result in similar functional results at 2 yr follow-up. Continued efforts to treat clubfeet nonoperatively are merited. Methods Forty-one children with 56 clubfeet treated nonoperatively by Ponseti casting and 47 children with 71 clubfeet treated by the French PT program were enrolled. Pretreatment Dimeglio scores ranged between 10 and 17, where 0 represents normal and 20 a rigid foot. [8] The pretreatment Dimeglio score for both groups was 12.9, indicating similar severity. Mild and moderate feet scoring 1 SD of normal (> 9°) in the final 25% of swing, and increased DF > 1 SD of normal (> 13°) during stance phase. Results There were no statistically significant differences in cadence, walking speed, or stride time between the treatment groups and normals. There were two clear kinematic patterns identified between groups. More children treated with PT walked in equinus (15%) compared to children who had Ponseti casting (0%)(p
Page 1 and 2:
O-01 KNEE EXTENSION AT TERMINAL SWI
Page 3 and 4:
O-02 THE MODIFIED TARDIEU IN STANDI
Page 5 and 6:
O-03 COORDINATION BETWEEN PELVIS, T
Page 7 and 8:
O-04 CAN GAIT ANALYSIS GUIDE MANAGE
Page 9 and 10:
O-05 DISTAL FEMORAL EXTENTSION OSTE
Page 11 and 12:
O-06 THE EFFECT OF SHOES ON GAIT IN
Page 13 and 14:
O-07 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN CLINICAL
Page 15 and 16:
O-08 DOUBLE CALIBRATION VS GLOBAL O
Page 17 and 18:
O-09 THE SYMMETRICAL AXIS OF ROTATI
Page 19 and 20:
O-10 FEASIBILITY OF A NEW -JOINT CO
Page 21 and 22:
O-11 A SINGLE GAIT CYCLE AS MEASURE
Page 23 and 24:
O-12 IMPROVED TRACKING OF HIP ROTAT
Page 25 and 26:
O-13 PROTOCOL CHANGES CAN IMPROVE T
Page 27 and 28:
O-14 ALTERNATIVE METHODS FOR MEASUR
Page 29 and 30:
O-15 OVERLAY PROJECTION OF 3D GAIT
Page 31 and 32:
O-16 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ANTHR
Page 33 and 34:
O-17 COMPARING THE RELIABILITY OF V
Page 35 and 36:
O-18 3D HIP AND PELVIC GAIT PATTERN
Page 37 and 38:
O-19 RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF AN
Page 39 and 40:
O-20 HOW ACCURATE IS THE ESTIMATION
Page 41 and 42:
O-21 IMPACT OF WHEELCHAIR PROPULSIO
Page 43 and 44:
O-22 TOWARDS A NEW PROTOCOL FOR MOT
Page 45 and 46:
O-23 KINEMATIC ANALYSIS OF UPPER LI
Page 47 and 48: O-24 KINEMATIC UPPER LIMB ANALYSIS
Page 49 and 50: O-25 3D KINEMATICS OF UPPER EXTREMI
Page 51 and 52: O-26 CLINICALLY SIGNIFICANT SHOULDE
Page 53 and 54: O-27 OBJECTIVE IDENTIFCATION OF GAI
Page 55 and 56: - 110 - O-28 NORMALCY GAIT INDEX AN
Page 57 and 58: O-29 GILLETTE GAIT INDEX IS CONSIST
Page 59 and 60: O-30 GAITABASE: NEW APPROACH TO CLI
Page 61 and 62: O-31 A MODIFIED GAIT CLASSIFICATION
Page 63 and 64: O-32 QUANTIFICATION OF KINEMATIC ME
Page 65 and 66: O-33 EXTRINSIC AND INTRINSIC VARIAT
Page 67 and 68: O-34 PAIRED OUTCOME ASSESSMENT OF A
Page 69 and 70: O-35 ENERGY EXPENDITURE DURING OVER
Page 71 and 72: O-36 HIGH FAILURE RATES WHEN AVOIDI
Page 73 and 74: O-37 SUBJECT SPECIFIC HIP GEOMETRY
Page 75 and 76: O-38 BIOMECHANICAL AND METABOLIC PE
Page 77 and 78: O-39 BIOMECHANICS OF GAIT IN CHARCO
Page 79 and 80: O-40 SAGITTAL PLANE LOWER EXTREMITY
Page 81 and 82: O-41 AN EXPLORATION OF THE FUNCTION
Page 83 and 84: O-42 DYNAMIC SIMULATIONS OF SLOW, F
Page 85 and 86: O-43 AUTOMATIC IDENTIFICATION OF MU
Page 87 and 88: O-44 DYNAMIC MEASUREMENT OF GASTROC
Page 89 and 90: O-45 ASSESSING THE REGULATORY ACTIV
Page 91 and 92: O-46 ABNORMAL EMG-ACTIVITY IN PATHO
Page 93 and 94: O-47 AVERAGED EMG PROFILES IN RUNNI
Page 95 and 96: O-48 TRACKING DYNAMIC FOOT PRESSURE
Page 97: O-49 THE INFLUENCE OF FOOTWEAR SOLE
Page 101 and 102: O-51 A COMPARISON OF METHODS FOR US
Page 103 and 104: O-52 BIOMECHANICAL OPTIMIZATION OF
Page 105 and 106: O-53 EFFECT OF SENSORY-THRESHOLD EL
Page 107 and 108: O-54 THE IMPACT OF SINGLE EVENT MUL
Page 109 and 110: O-55 COMPREHENSIVE GAIT ANALYSIS OU
Page 111 and 112: O-56 THE EFFECT OF INCLUDING S2 ROO
Page 113 and 114: O-57 DYNAMIC FUNCTION AFTER ANTERIO
Page 115 and 116: O-58 RECOVERY OF MUSCLE STRENGTH FO
Page 117 and 118: O-59 AUDITORY-PACED WALKING FOLLOWI
show all

1st Joint ESMAC-GCMAS Meeting - Análise de Marcha

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?