(Table 1),,. Cane, Cru. Age (yrs)

Transcription

1 : ). 1,2), (visual input) 3), (proprioceptive deficit) 4), (respiration) ), (knee flexion contracture) 6), (leg length discrepancy) 7), (foot position) 8) 9).. Cane, Cru tch, Walker Bar and Rail ), ).,., (Base of Support BOS)... :, 0 20, ( ) 0, (Table 1),,.,,, Table 1. Age & S e x Dis tribution of the S ubjects Age (yrs) Normal Hemiplegia Male Female Total Total Total

2 ( ) 1993 ) (,, ),, Balance Index 1,, (Both-foot) (One-foot), (Eye-open) (Eyeclosed), - (Hard-surface) - (Soft-surface) 4 (Table 2). - (Proprioception), Cushion 2. (sway), 3, 4,.,,,, 11).,, (Dominant), Cushion, cm 11). Medium-density foam 11) (Standing balance index), 0,. Fig. 1. Gaitaids: 1) mono- cane, 2) quad- cane, 3) forearm crutch 4) axillary crutch ) walker. Table 2. Mean S cales of Unit Test of Balance in Normal Standing Hard surface Soft surface Both Foot One Foot Eye-Open Eye-Closed Eye-Open Eye-Closed Total 34. Max : 40 80

3 , 40 (P<0.0), 60. 3) Table, 2,, monocane, quad-cane, forearm-crutch, axillary-crutch 22.4%, - -.9%, walker(fig. 1) 22.4%.. walker,,. 1) , (P<0.0), 60.% (Table 3). 2), (Randomized block design) 60.%, - -, %, 39.4% (In (Table 2). terrater Correlationship), 1 (between trials by one examiner) (Intrarater Correlationship), 1) Gait-aid gait-aid, walker (Average Correlation Coefficient) (test-retest reliability). unpaired t-test, (ANOVA). 40.0, quadcane 38.6 gait-aid. Forearm-crutch, axillary-crutch, monocane 37.1, 37.1, 36.9, 3 (Table 3). 2) gait-aid,, walker 1) 37.6, quadcane , , gait-aid, axillary-crutch, monocane, 2) , , , , forearm-crutch 26.0, 2.6, 2.8, 3 (Table 3). 3) Gait-aid 81

4 , Gait-aid Gait-aid, (Gaitaid - Gaitaid ) / Gaitaid Assist Ratio(%)( ),, walker 79.0%, Quad-cane 43.3%, mono-cane, forearm Table 3. Bala nce Inde x a s s ite d by Ga it-a ids in Norma l a nd S troke Gait-aid Normal Stroke None Mono-cane Quad-cane Forearm crutch Axillary crutch Walker crutch, axillary crutch 21.4 % (Table 4). 4) Gait-aid,, walker quad-cane, - - walker, walker (Table ). Intrarater Correlation Coefficient 0.94, 0.86, Interrater Correlation Coefficient Table 4. Ba la nce Inde x a s s ite d by Ga it-a ids Gait-aid None Mono-cane Quad-cane Forearm crutch Axillary crutch Walker Both Foot Stroke Balance index Assit ratio(%) Balance index Assit ratio(%) Table. Mean S cales of Unit Test of Balance in stroke patients Gait-aids None Mono-cane Quad-cane Forearm crutch Axillary crutch Walker Foot Surface Eye Boot One(Diff Hard Soft(Diff) Open Closed(Diff) (2.3) 2.1(2.2) 3.0(1.6) 2.2(2.1) 2.1(2.2) 4.(0.4) (1.1) 3.0(0.4) 3.6(0.4) 3.0(0.) 3.0(0.) 4.6(0.2) (1.3) 2.8(0.8) 3.4(0.8) 2.8(0.9) 2.8(0.9) 4.6(0.2) 82

5 , 40, Berg 3 18),, Bohannon (biomechanical support), (motor coordination), (sensory integration) 12). (visual), (vestibular function), (proprioception) 3 13,14). 19).,,, 4 20), Bruell 21,22),. (Base of support: BOS), (Center of gravity:cog),,,,,,,. 12,1). B.O.S.,,,,,. C.O.G.,,, balance board,., 16)., Ruskin (Dynamic balance), cane, crutch, walker. cane C.O.G., mono-cane,,, quad-cane, cane 20-2%. crutch 17)., cane, crutch,,,, (Balance,. Forearm-crutch 4-0% index), axillary-crutch,, B.O.S. C.O.G.. 80%. Forearm-crutch, forearm-crutch. walker 83

6 , quad-cane mono-cane B.O.S. 20). mono-,, 8-,23). cane quad-cane,, quad-cane B.O.S. mono-cane.,,, 20).,,, quad-cane walker, 18).. (C.O.G.) 20). (B.O.S.) C.O.G.,,.,, 12,1). B.O.S. ). Cane., crutch B.O.S., 20).,., walker, quad-cane, 3 mono-cane, forearm-crutch, axillarycrutch. quad-cane mono-cane,, crutch Milezarek 9) mono-cane quad-cane, Kisler force plate, cane gait-aid, mono-cane 84

7 quad-cane, forearm crutch, axillary crutch, walker 1) , ) Gait-aid gait-aid,. 3) gait-aid walker, quad-cane. gait-aid,. 4) Gait-aid, walker 79.0%, Quad-cane 43.3%, mono-cane, forearm crutch, axillary crutch 21.4%. walker, quadcane, 3 mono-cane forearm crutch, axillary crutch.,, = Abstract = Assitive Effect of Gait-aids for the Standing Balance Ki Eon Jang, M.D., Tae Hwan Park, M.D. and Jong Lull Yoon, M.D. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Department of Family Medicine,* Hallym University College of Medicine Background : The gaitaids are helpful for the patients of gait disturbance, but there was no study about the quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of gaitaids of several differnet types. But proper use of gaitaids is important for the disabled who is suffered from falls with or without trauma. The appropriate prescription of gaitaids is coming from the objective assessment for gaitaids. Methods : We evaluated the balance index(bi), which is originally suggested assessment scale by author, for the five different gaitaids :mono-cane, quad-cane, forearm crutch, axillary crutch, walker. We assessed the difference of B.I. with or without using each gaitaids examined by 0 healthy adults and 20 stroke patients. Results : The BI in the normal adult was , and in the stroke patients. The balance index of walker user was , which was the highest score. The BI of quad-cane was , which was the next highest score and the BI of mono-cane, forearm crutch, axillary crutch were 2..6, 2..7, 2..4, which were lower than that of quad-cane. Conclusion : It can be suggested that the walker is the most effective for the support balance on gait and the quad-cane is more effective than mono-cane or crutches for balance support. Key Words : Gaitaids, Cane, Balance, Stroke 8

8 REFERENCES 1) Sheldon JH: The effect of age on the control o sway. Gerontol Clin :129, ) Hasselkus BR, Shambes GM: Aging and postural sway in women. J Geront 30:661, 197 3) Dornan J, Fernie GR, Holliday PJ: Visual input its importance in the control of postural sway Arch Phys Med Rehabil 9:86, ) Fernie GR, Holliday PJ: Postural sway in am putees and normal subjects. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 60:89, 1978 ) Jeong BY: Respiration effect on standing balance. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 72:642, ) Potter PJ, Kirby RL, MaacLeod DA: The effec of simulated knee-flexion contractures on stand ing balance. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 69: ) Mahar RK, Kirby RL, MacLeod DA: simulated leg-length discrepancy: its effect on mean center-of-pressure position and postural sway. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 66:822, 198 8) Kirby RL, Price NA, MacLeod DA: The influ ence of foot position on standing balance. J Biomech 20:423, ) Milezarek JJ, Kirby RL, Harrison ER, MacLeod DA: Standard and Four-footed Canes: Their Effect on the Standing Balance of Patients With Hemiparesis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 74:281, 1993 ) Joyce BM, Kirby RL: Canes,crutches and wal kers. Am Fam Phys 43:3, ),, :. 18:61, ) Horak FB: Clinical measurement of postural control inadults. Phys Ther 67:1881, ) Shumway-cook A, Horak FB: Assessing the in fluence of sensory interaction on balance. Phys Ther 66:148, ) Cohen H, Blatchly CA, Gombash LL: A study o the clinical test of sensory interaction and balance. Phys Ther 73:346, ) Jansen EC, Larsen RE, Olesen MB: Quantatitive Romberg s test: measurement and computer calculation of postural stability. Acta Neurolo Scand 66:93, ) Fisher AG, Wietlisbach SE, Wilbarger JL: Adul performance on three tests of equilibrium. Am J Occup Ther 42:30, ) Ruskin AP: Current therapy in physiatry, pp 26 Philadelphia,WB Saunder, ) Berg KO, Maki BE, Williams JI, Holliday PJ Wood-Dauphinee SL: Clinical and laboratory measures of postural balance in an elderly po pulation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 73:73, ) Bohannon RW, Larkin PA, Cook AC, Gear J Singer J: Decreased in timed balance test scores with aging. Phys Ther 64:67, ) Kottke FJ, Lehmann JF: Krusen s handbook o physical medicine and rehabilitation, P121, 473 4th ed, Philadelphia, W B Saunders, ) Bruell JH, Peszczynski M, Albee GW: Distur bance of perception of verticality in patients with hemiplegia: a preliminary report.arch Phys Med Rehabil 37:677,196 22) Bruell JH, Peszczynski M, Volk D: Disturbance of perception of verticality in patients with hemiplegia: second report.arch Phys Med Reha bil 38:776, ) Delisa JA: Rehabilitation Medicine, p04, 2nd ed. Philadelphia, JB Lippincott Co,