Tugba Atan, Umay Ekinci, Ayca Uran San, Yasin Demir, Umut Guzelkucuk, Serdar Kesikburun, Sinem Uyar Koylu, Arif Kenan Tan
{"title":"中风后跌倒与瘫痪肢体和非瘫痪肢体髋骨矿物质密度之间的关系。","authors":"Tugba Atan, Umay Ekinci, Ayca Uran San, Yasin Demir, Umut Guzelkucuk, Serdar Kesikburun, Sinem Uyar Koylu, Arif Kenan Tan","doi":"10.1002/pmrj.13290","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Poststroke osteoporosis, particularly of the hip, and an increased risk of fractures due to accidental falls are well known in people with stroke. Only a few of the current stroke guidelines recommend bone mineral density (BMD) measurements during follow-up in this population and measurements are often performed unilaterally.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare femoral hip BMD between fallers and nonfallers among patients with stroke, while also assessing differences in balance, mobility, fear of falling, and exploring discrepancies between paretic and nonparetic sides within each group.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Cross-sectional.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Inpatient stroke rehabilitation unit of a tertiary university hospital.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Patients with unilateral hemiplegia hospitalized as a result of stroke.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Not applicable.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>The primary outcome was the femoral neck BMD measurement. Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry was used to measure BMD. Secondary outcomes included Berg balance scale (BBS), timed up-and-go test (TUGT), functional ambulation classification (FAC), and falls efficacy scale-international (FES-I).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 44 patients were enrolled. Twenty-two participants (50%) reported falling. There were no statistically significant differences in BMD (p = .504, p = .197, p = .667, respectively) and T-scores (p = .457, p = .194, p = .693, respectively) of paretic, nonparetic femoral neck, and lumbar spine between nonfallers and fallers. The BBS (p = .033, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.17-19.05) was significantly lower in the fallers. The FES-I was statistically significantly higher in the fallers (p = .001, 95% CI -22.40 to -6.50). The BMD and T-scores of femoral neck between the paretic and the nonparetic limbs did not differ significantly in the nonfallers (n = 22) (p = .908, 95% CI -0.03-0.03; p = .886, 95% CI -0.27-0.24) but did differ in the fallers (n = 22) (p = .007, 95% CI -0.06 to -0.01; p = .006, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.09).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study emphasizes that hip BMD may differ on paretic and nonparetic sides, especially in patients with stroke and a history of falls and balance problems. Fall-related self-efficacy and balance may be determinants of falls in these patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":20354,"journal":{"name":"PM&R","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The relationship between falls and hip bone mineral density of paretic and nonparetic limbs after stroke.\",\"authors\":\"Tugba Atan, Umay Ekinci, Ayca Uran San, Yasin Demir, Umut Guzelkucuk, Serdar Kesikburun, Sinem Uyar Koylu, Arif Kenan Tan\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/pmrj.13290\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Poststroke osteoporosis, particularly of the hip, and an increased risk of fractures due to accidental falls are well known in people with stroke. Only a few of the current stroke guidelines recommend bone mineral density (BMD) measurements during follow-up in this population and measurements are often performed unilaterally.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare femoral hip BMD between fallers and nonfallers among patients with stroke, while also assessing differences in balance, mobility, fear of falling, and exploring discrepancies between paretic and nonparetic sides within each group.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Cross-sectional.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Inpatient stroke rehabilitation unit of a tertiary university hospital.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Patients with unilateral hemiplegia hospitalized as a result of stroke.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Not applicable.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>The primary outcome was the femoral neck BMD measurement. Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry was used to measure BMD. Secondary outcomes included Berg balance scale (BBS), timed up-and-go test (TUGT), functional ambulation classification (FAC), and falls efficacy scale-international (FES-I).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 44 patients were enrolled. Twenty-two participants (50%) reported falling. There were no statistically significant differences in BMD (p = .504, p = .197, p = .667, respectively) and T-scores (p = .457, p = .194, p = .693, respectively) of paretic, nonparetic femoral neck, and lumbar spine between nonfallers and fallers. The BBS (p = .033, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.17-19.05) was significantly lower in the fallers. The FES-I was statistically significantly higher in the fallers (p = .001, 95% CI -22.40 to -6.50). The BMD and T-scores of femoral neck between the paretic and the nonparetic limbs did not differ significantly in the nonfallers (n = 22) (p = .908, 95% CI -0.03-0.03; p = .886, 95% CI -0.27-0.24) but did differ in the fallers (n = 22) (p = .007, 95% CI -0.06 to -0.01; p = .006, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.09).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study emphasizes that hip BMD may differ on paretic and nonparetic sides, especially in patients with stroke and a history of falls and balance problems. Fall-related self-efficacy and balance may be determinants of falls in these patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20354,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PM&R\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PM&R\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/pmrj.13290\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PM&R","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pmrj.13290","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:众所周知,中风患者在中风后会出现骨质疏松症,尤其是髋部骨质疏松症,并因意外跌倒而增加骨折风险。目前只有少数脑卒中指南建议在随访期间对这类人群进行骨质密度(BMD)测量,而且测量通常是单侧进行:比较中风患者中跌倒者和未跌倒者的股骨髋关节 BMD,同时评估平衡能力、活动能力、跌倒恐惧的差异,并探讨每组中瘫痪侧和非瘫痪侧之间的差异:设计:横断面:患者:单侧偏瘫患者干预措施:不适用:主要结果测量主要结果:股骨颈BMD测量。采用双能 X 光吸收测量法测量 BMD。次要结果包括伯格平衡量表(BBS)、定时起立行走测试(TUGT)、功能性行走分类(FAC)和国际跌倒效能量表(FES-I):结果:共有 44 名患者接受了治疗。22名患者(50%)报告跌倒。未跌倒者与跌倒者的 BMD(分别为 p = .504、p = .197 和 p = .667)和瘫痪股骨颈、非瘫痪股骨颈和腰椎的 T 评分(分别为 p = .457、p = .194 和 p = .693)差异无统计学意义。跌倒者的 BBS(p = .033,95% 置信区间 [CI]0.17-19.05)明显低于非跌倒者。据统计,跌倒者的 FES-I 明显更高(p = .001,95% 置信区间 -22.40 至 -6.50)。瘫痪肢体和非瘫痪肢体的股骨颈 BMD 和 T 值在未跌倒者(n = 22)中无明显差异(p = .908,95% CI -0.03-0.03;p = .886,95% CI -0.27-0.24),但在跌倒者(n = 22)中存在差异(p = .007,95% CI -0.06 至 -0.01;p = .006,95% CI -0.51 至 -0.09):本研究强调,瘫痪侧和非瘫痪侧的髋部 BMD 可能存在差异,尤其是在有跌倒和平衡问题病史的中风患者中。与跌倒相关的自我效能感和平衡能力可能是这些患者跌倒的决定因素。
The relationship between falls and hip bone mineral density of paretic and nonparetic limbs after stroke.
Background: Poststroke osteoporosis, particularly of the hip, and an increased risk of fractures due to accidental falls are well known in people with stroke. Only a few of the current stroke guidelines recommend bone mineral density (BMD) measurements during follow-up in this population and measurements are often performed unilaterally.
Objectives: To compare femoral hip BMD between fallers and nonfallers among patients with stroke, while also assessing differences in balance, mobility, fear of falling, and exploring discrepancies between paretic and nonparetic sides within each group.
Design: Cross-sectional.
Setting: Inpatient stroke rehabilitation unit of a tertiary university hospital.
Patients: Patients with unilateral hemiplegia hospitalized as a result of stroke.
Interventions: Not applicable.
Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the femoral neck BMD measurement. Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry was used to measure BMD. Secondary outcomes included Berg balance scale (BBS), timed up-and-go test (TUGT), functional ambulation classification (FAC), and falls efficacy scale-international (FES-I).
Results: A total of 44 patients were enrolled. Twenty-two participants (50%) reported falling. There were no statistically significant differences in BMD (p = .504, p = .197, p = .667, respectively) and T-scores (p = .457, p = .194, p = .693, respectively) of paretic, nonparetic femoral neck, and lumbar spine between nonfallers and fallers. The BBS (p = .033, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.17-19.05) was significantly lower in the fallers. The FES-I was statistically significantly higher in the fallers (p = .001, 95% CI -22.40 to -6.50). The BMD and T-scores of femoral neck between the paretic and the nonparetic limbs did not differ significantly in the nonfallers (n = 22) (p = .908, 95% CI -0.03-0.03; p = .886, 95% CI -0.27-0.24) but did differ in the fallers (n = 22) (p = .007, 95% CI -0.06 to -0.01; p = .006, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.09).
Conclusions: This study emphasizes that hip BMD may differ on paretic and nonparetic sides, especially in patients with stroke and a history of falls and balance problems. Fall-related self-efficacy and balance may be determinants of falls in these patients.
期刊介绍:
Topics covered include acute and chronic musculoskeletal disorders and pain, neurologic conditions involving the central and peripheral nervous systems, rehabilitation of impairments associated with disabilities in adults and children, and neurophysiology and electrodiagnosis. PM&R emphasizes principles of injury, function, and rehabilitation, and is designed to be relevant to practitioners and researchers in a variety of medical and surgical specialties and rehabilitation disciplines including allied health.