Impaired Standing Balance in Older Adults with Cognitive Impairment after a Severe Fall.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q3 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Gerontology Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-04-27 DOI:10.1159/000538598
Laura Schmidt, Tania Zieschang, Jessica Koschate, Tim Stuckenschneider
{"title":"Impaired Standing Balance in Older Adults with Cognitive Impairment after a Severe Fall.","authors":"Laura Schmidt, Tania Zieschang, Jessica Koschate, Tim Stuckenschneider","doi":"10.1159/000538598","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Fall-related sequelae as well as balance and gait impairments are more pronounced in older adults who are cognitively impaired (OACI) compared to older adults who are cognitively healthy (OACH). Evidence is scarce about differences in standing balance and gait in OACH and OACI after a fall, even though these are major risks for recurrent falls. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate early impairments in gait and balance, by adding inertial measurement units (IMUs) to a functional performance test in OACH and OACI after a severe fall with a presentation to the emergency department (ED) and immediate discharge.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study sample was stratified into participants with and without probable cognitive impairment using the result of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment total score (maximum of 30 points). The cutoff for probable cognitive impairment was set at ≤ 24. Standing balance and gait parameters were measured using three IMUs in n = 69 OACH (72.0 ± 8.2 years) and n = 76 OACI (78.7 ± 8.1 years). Data were collected at participants' homes as part of a comprehensive geriatric assessment in the \"SeFallED\" study within 4 weeks after presentation to the ED after a severe fall (German Clinical Trials Register ID: 00025949). ANCOVA was used for statistical analysis, adjusted for age.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The data indicated significantly more sway for OACI compared to OACH during balance tasks, whereas no differences in gait behavior were found. In detail, differences in standing balance were revealed for mean velocity (m/s) during parallel stance with eyes open (<inline-formula><mml:math id=\"m1\" xmlns:mml=\"http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>η</mml:mi><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> = 0.190, p &lt; 0.001) and eyes closed on a balance cushion (<inline-formula><mml:math id=\"m2\" xmlns:mml=\"http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>η</mml:mi><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> = 0.059, p = 0.029), as well as during tandem stance (<inline-formula><mml:math id=\"m3\" xmlns:mml=\"http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>η</mml:mi><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> = 0.034, p = 0.044) between OACI and OACH. Further differences between the two groups were detected for path length (m/s2) during parallel stance with eyes open (<inline-formula><mml:math id=\"m4\" xmlns:mml=\"http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>η</mml:mi><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> = 0.144, p &lt; 0.001) and eyes closed (<inline-formula><mml:math id=\"m5\" xmlns:mml=\"http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>η</mml:mi><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> = 0.044, p &lt; 0.027) and for range (m/s2) during tandem (<inline-formula><mml:math id=\"m6\" xmlns:mml=\"http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>η</mml:mi><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> = 0.036, p = 0.036) and parallel stance with eyes closed (<inline-formula><mml:math id=\"m7\" xmlns:mml=\"http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>η</mml:mi><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> = 0.045, p = 0.032).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Even though both groups have experienced a severe fall with presentation to the ED in the preceding 4 weeks, balance control among OACI indicated a higher fall risk than among OACH. Therefore, effective secondary fall prevention efforts have to be established, particularly for OACI.</p>","PeriodicalId":12662,"journal":{"name":"Gerontology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gerontology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000538598","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Fall-related sequelae as well as balance and gait impairments are more pronounced in older adults who are cognitively impaired (OACI) compared to older adults who are cognitively healthy (OACH). Evidence is scarce about differences in standing balance and gait in OACH and OACI after a fall, even though these are major risks for recurrent falls. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate early impairments in gait and balance, by adding inertial measurement units (IMUs) to a functional performance test in OACH and OACI after a severe fall with a presentation to the emergency department (ED) and immediate discharge.

Methods: The study sample was stratified into participants with and without probable cognitive impairment using the result of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment total score (maximum of 30 points). The cutoff for probable cognitive impairment was set at ≤ 24. Standing balance and gait parameters were measured using three IMUs in n = 69 OACH (72.0 ± 8.2 years) and n = 76 OACI (78.7 ± 8.1 years). Data were collected at participants' homes as part of a comprehensive geriatric assessment in the "SeFallED" study within 4 weeks after presentation to the ED after a severe fall (German Clinical Trials Register ID: 00025949). ANCOVA was used for statistical analysis, adjusted for age.

Results: The data indicated significantly more sway for OACI compared to OACH during balance tasks, whereas no differences in gait behavior were found. In detail, differences in standing balance were revealed for mean velocity (m/s) during parallel stance with eyes open (ηp2 = 0.190, p < 0.001) and eyes closed on a balance cushion (ηp2 = 0.059, p = 0.029), as well as during tandem stance (ηp2 = 0.034, p = 0.044) between OACI and OACH. Further differences between the two groups were detected for path length (m/s2) during parallel stance with eyes open (ηp2 = 0.144, p < 0.001) and eyes closed (ηp2 = 0.044, p < 0.027) and for range (m/s2) during tandem (ηp2 = 0.036, p = 0.036) and parallel stance with eyes closed (ηp2 = 0.045, p = 0.032).

Conclusion: Even though both groups have experienced a severe fall with presentation to the ED in the preceding 4 weeks, balance control among OACI indicated a higher fall risk than among OACH. Therefore, effective secondary fall prevention efforts have to be established, particularly for OACI.

严重跌倒后有认知障碍的老年人站立平衡能力受损。
导言:与认知能力健康的老年人(OACH)相比,认知能力受损的老年人(OACI)与跌倒相关的后遗症以及平衡和步态障碍更为明显。尽管跌倒后的站立平衡和步态是再次跌倒的主要风险,但有关 OACH 和 OACI 在跌倒后的站立平衡和步态差异的证据却很少。因此,本研究的目的是通过将惯性测量单元(IMU)添加到功能表现测试中,调查严重跌倒后到急诊科(ED)就诊并立即出院的 OACH 和 OACI 患者在步态和平衡方面的早期损伤。方法 根据蒙特利尔认知评估总分(最高 30 分)的结果,将研究样本分为可能存在认知障碍和不存在认知障碍的参与者。可能存在认知障碍的分界线定为≤24分。使用三个 IMU 测量了 69 名 OACH(72.0 ± 8.2 岁)和 76 名 OACI(78.7 ± 8.1 岁)参与者的站立平衡和步态参数。作为 "SeFallED "研究中老年综合评估的一部分,数据是在严重跌倒后到急诊室就诊四周内,在参与者家中收集的(德国临床试验注册编号:00025949)。统计分析采用方差分析,并对年龄进行了调整。结果 数据显示,在平衡任务中,OACI 的摇摆明显多于 OACH,而在步态行为中没有发现差异。具体而言,睁眼平行站立时的平均速度(米/秒)显示了站立平衡的差异(ηp2=0.190,p<0.05)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Gerontology
Gerontology 医学-老年医学
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
94
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: In view of the ever-increasing fraction of elderly people, understanding the mechanisms of aging and age-related diseases has become a matter of urgent necessity. ''Gerontology'', the oldest journal in the field, responds to this need by drawing topical contributions from multiple disciplines to support the fundamental goals of extending active life and enhancing its quality. The range of papers is classified into four sections. In the Clinical Section, the aetiology, pathogenesis, prevention and treatment of agerelated diseases are discussed from a gerontological rather than a geriatric viewpoint. The Experimental Section contains up-to-date contributions from basic gerontological research. Papers dealing with behavioural development and related topics are placed in the Behavioural Science Section. Basic aspects of regeneration in different experimental biological systems as well as in the context of medical applications are dealt with in a special section that also contains information on technological advances for the elderly. Providing a primary source of high-quality papers covering all aspects of aging in humans and animals, ''Gerontology'' serves as an ideal information tool for all readers interested in the topic of aging from a broad perspective.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信