| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Letters and Responses |
I read with great interest the article by Daubney and Culham entitled "Lower Extremity Muscle Force and Balance Performance in Adults Aged 65 Years and Older" (December 1999).
After reading the article and reviewing the data presented, I found several sections of the article that lead me to question the authors' results and conclusions. According to their own data, the 3 measures of balance—the Berg Balance Scale (BBS), the Timed Get Up & Go Test (GUG), and the Functional Reach Test (FRT)—failed to yield significant differences between subjects with a history of falling and subjects without a history of falling (Tab. 1). Intuitively, that result would suggest either that (1) the measures were not valid for the population being tested or (2) the authors' assumption that there is a relationship between balance and the incidence of falling is not valid. In either case, these measures should not have been used, because they failed to detect significant differences between the groups. If the muscle testing methods showed a difference between groups, what would that mean?
From the initial question, I went on to investigate the methodology and findings for the measurements of muscle force, which provoked several more questions. Why were of all the muscle groups tested in the midrange of joint motion? The principles of biomechanics and exercise physiology clearly dictate that the maximal force of the muscles in question would have been best tested in the position of function, standing, or at 90 degrees to the joint axis. In addition, and perhaps most perplexing, is why the authors performed all the tests with the subjects positioned supine. Logically, if you want to determine the relationship of muscle force to the 3 tests of standing balance, then the muscle force measurements should be performed in a standing position. Each muscle force test performed must be questioned as to its validity for measuring force in relationship to the function of standing, walking, or balance.
The force of the hip flexors and hip extensors was measured at 90 degrees of hip flexion, yet the functional joint position is 30 degrees of hip flexion for the extensors (initial contact during gait) and 10 to 15 degrees of hip extension for the hip flexors (terminal stance and preswing). I also could not determine from the Figure, which is supposed to demonstrate 90 degrees of hip flexion, that the thigh was in 90 degrees of flexion. The Figure seems to indicate significantly less flexion.
Ankle plantar-flexor muscles were tested in the correct range, but the results of a handheld test are difficult to accept. Kendall et al1 described the test for these muscles in the standing position in which the subject undertakes a series of lifts that require elevation of the subject's entire body weight. In my clinical experience, a "Good" to "Normal" manual muscle test grade for the plantar-flexor group cannot be broken by a tester using only his or her individual strength. At this place in the article, the authors' findings break down. In Table 2, the authors report a maximum mean plantar-flexion force of 28.04 kg (range=14.48–38.68 kg) for day 1 and of 26.21 kg (range=17.17–40.51 kg) for day 2. Table 1 provides the demographics of the subjects and shows a mean body weight of 79.36 kg (range=66–103 kg) in the subjects with falls and of 74.28 kg (range=38–115 kg) in the subjects without falls.
These 2 sets of data would appear to indicate that none of the participants could even begin to complete a single lift of body weight using the plantar flexors. Thus, all of the participants would have had, at best, "Fair" or "Fair-plus" plantar-flexor strength and would have had obvious gait deviations. Yet, none of this is reported. When the authors normalized their force measurements for body weight (in kilograms of force per kilogram of body weight), this should have been apparent. At this point, it is not clear whether the data presented in Table 2 are normalized or absolute; however, either way, because of the methods used for testing the hip flexors, extensors, and plantar flexors, the measurements of force generation are not relevant to standing or walking.
Finally, it is not clear what the term "push-off" means in the statement "[t]he ankle plantar flexors contribute to the support moment in the stance phase of gait and the plantar-flexor moment of the push-off phase of the gait cycle." According to Perry,2 the plantar flexors act eccentrically to slow the transition of the tibia over the talus during mid-stance and do not participate in push-off of the body.
According to the authors, "[o]nly ankle dorsiflexion force contributed to the prediction of fall status." I suggest that an accurate measurement of plantar-flexor, hip extensor, and hip flexor strength in the upright posture at the correct functional angles—using tests that discriminate between subjects with a history of falling and subjects without a history of falling—might have produced entirely different results.
(Sirwin{at}ngcsu.edu)
References
Whether lower-extremity weakness precedes falling or is a secondary effect of a fall due to a decrease in mobility is not clear from retrospective investigations. However, prospective studies that have evaluated lower-extremity muscle force in subjects who have fallen and in subjects who have not fallen have shown lower-extremity weakness to be a risk factor for falls9 and a predictor of falls.10
Dr Irwin questioned the reasons behind testing the muscle groups in midrange versus positions of function (eg, standing). Bohannon11 suggested that testing muscles at a position midway between fully lengthened and fully contracted would give a more reasonable estimate of muscle group capacity. In the middle range, muscle groups are neither highly advantaged nor disadvantaged. Additionally, given the population of older adults that was being investigated, it would have been difficult to position subjects and adequately stabilize them in standing. The subjects were primarily tested in a supine position, and the hip rotators were tested with the subjects in a sitting position. We chose these positions because of the stability of the subjects in these positions, because they are previously documented positions for testing these muscle groups,11 and because testing in only 2 positions minimized moving the subjects frequently between methods of muscle group testing. The test-retest reliability of all force measurements was determined prior to conducting the study. In our opinion, reliability would have been compromised had we tested subjects in a less stable position such as standing. Dr Irwin is correct in that our Figure unfortunately does not accurately reflect the test position for measurement of hip flexor muscle force.
Muscle force measures are dependent on position and muscle length. All of the force data for subjects in this study were similar to data reported for similar populations.12–15 Data in Table 2 were not normalized so that values could be compared with those previously reported.12–15
Plantar-flexor muscle forces, in our opinion, can easily overpower testers (as can hip extensor muscle forces) during manual muscle testing. For this reason, we used the stabilization frame and guide ropes that were attached to the handheld dynamometer and strung through adjustable cam cleats on the frame in an attempt to provide additional support and stabilization to the researcher so that an isometric test could be performed.
The ankle plantar flexors are the power generators in the late stance phase of the gait cycle,16,17 and the term "push off" is a commonly accepted label for the propulsive phase of gait. The eccentric contraction of the plantar flexors, as described by Dr Irwin, is followed by a concentric contraction as the ankle plantar flexes between heel-off and toe-off, generating the propulsive force for forward momentum.
Dr Irwin may be correct in assuming that results would have been different had forces been measured with the subjects in upright stance. Accurate and reliable methods of measuring force in an upright functional mode (preferably applicable in the clinical setting) are needed in order to test his hypotheses. However, the finding that the force-producing capability of the ankle dorsiflexors is related to postural control is consistent with previous literature.18,19
Associate Professor
Physical Therapy Program
School of Rehabilitation Therapy
Queen's University
Kingston, Ontario, Canada, K7L JN6
(culhame{at}post.queensu.ca)
References
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
Related Article
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
