A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing the Effectiveness of Aerobic Training and Circuit Training on Balance in Ataxic Patients.

Background: The term ataxia refers to the inability to coordinate movement. It essentially happens when the cerebellum or any of its connections are damaged. A brain tumor, multiple sclerosis, stroke, cerebral palsy, certain drugs, and genetic illnesses are the few examples of the ailments that can result in ataxia. Although aerobic exercise helps ataxic people in decreasing whole disease severity, conventional training does not significantly aid in this regard. On the other hand, circuit training has also proved effective in reducing ataxic symptoms in some literatures.

Aim and purpose: This study's primary goal was to ascertain whether aerobic or circuit training provides a better course of treatment for the ataxic patients.

Methodology: Eighteen pre-diagnosed ataxic patients participated in a randomized clinical experiment (9 patients in each group) for this objective. Purposive sampling technique was used to collect samples, and patients were allocated into their groups using the lottery method. Group A was aerobic training group and Group B was circuit training group. The time duration for this study was approximately 4 months where data collection took almost 1 month. 30 min sessions consisting of 5 sessions per week were given to the patients for 1 month duration. Data were calculated from Allied hospital. Assessment and examination were carried out using Berg Balance Scale (BBS) and Functional staging for ataxia giving pre- and post-values.

Statistical analysis: Data were analyzed statistically through SPSS 24.

Results: In terms of indicating balance along with ataxia staging, the statistics showed only a slight difference in the aerobic training group than in the circuit training group. The given differences found between the pre and the post values in mean and standard deviation in Group 1 is -11.75 ± 1.48 and in Group 2 is -9.55 ± 3.67. The first treatment group had a mean rank of 9.50 prior to treatment and 7.50 following treatment. Conversely, the mean rank of the second treatment group was 10.33 at the post-treatment level and 9.50 at the pre-treatment level.

Discussion: In essence, these two tactics performed better than some other therapy approaches on a consistent basis. Although there have not been enough studies to compare these two treatments, their respective outcomes are enough to show their effectiveness. Eventually, the aerobic intervention was found only marginally superior to the circuit training, while both were helpful for improving balance in ataxia.

Trial registration: This study used a randomized clinical trial research design. It has been registered in IRCT, that is, the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials under the registration Id IRCT20240323061354N1.