Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (2)
Language
- English (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2)
Keywords
- Aging (2) (remove)
Institute
- Department Sport- und Gesundheitswissenschaften (2) (remove)
Maintaining and increasing walking speed in old age is clinically important because this activity of daily living predicts functional and clinical state. We reviewed evidence for the biomechanical mechanisms of how strength and power training increase gait speed in old adults. A systematic search yielded only four studies that reported changes in selected gait biomechanical variables after an intervention. A secondary analysis of 20 studies revealed an association of r(2) = 0.21 between the 22% and 12% increase, respectively, in quadriceps strength and gait velocity in 815 individuals age 72. In 6 studies, there was a correlation of r(2) = 0.16 between the 19% and 9% gains in plantarflexion strength and gait speed in 240 old volunteers age 75. In 8 studies, there was zero association between the 35% and 13% gains in leg mechanical power and gait speed in 150 old adults age 73. To increase the efficacy of intervention studies designed to improve gait speed and other critical mobility functions in old adults, there is a need for a paradigm shift from conventional (clinical) outcome assessments to more sophisticated biomechanical analyses that examine joint kinematics, kinetics, energetics, muscle-tendon function, and musculoskeletal modeling before and after interventions.
Background: Dynamic balance keeps the vertical projection of the center of mass within the base of support while walking. Dynamic balance tests are used to predict the risks of falls and eventual falls. The psychometric properties of most dynamic balance tests are unsatisfactory and do not comprise an actual loss of balance while walking. Objectives: Using beam walking distance as a measure of dynamic balance, the BEAM consortium will determine the psychometric properties, lifespan and patient reference values, the relationship with selected “dynamic balance tests,” and the accuracy of beam walking distance to predict falls. Methods: This cross-sectional observational study will examine healthy adults in 7 decades (n = 432) at 4 centers. Center 5 will examine patients (n = 100) diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, stroke, and balance disorders. In test 1, all participants will be measured for demographics, medical history, muscle strength, gait, static balance, dynamic balance using beam walking under single (beam walking only) and dual task conditions (beam walking while concurrently performing an arithmetic task), and several cognitive functions. Patients and healthy participants age 50 years or older will be additionally measured for fear of falling, history of falls, miniBESTest, functional reach on a force platform, timed up and go, and reactive balance. All participants age 50 years or older will be recalled to report fear of falling and fall history 6 and 12 months after test 1. In test 2, seven to ten days after test 1, healthy young adults and age 50 years or older (n = 40) will be retested for reliability of beam walking performance. Conclusion: We expect to find that beam walking performance vis-à-vis the traditionally used balance outcomes predicts more accurately fall risks and falls. Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT03532984.