Basit öğe kaydını göster

dc.contributor.authorÖzkal, Özden
dc.contributor.authorErdem, Melek Merve
dc.contributor.authorKısmet, Kemal
dc.contributor.authorTopuz, Semra
dc.date.accessioned2020-12-19T19:35:39Z
dc.date.available2020-12-19T19:35:39Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.citationÖzkal, Ö., Erdem, M. M., Kısmet, K., & Topuz, S. (2020). Comparison of upper limb burn injury versus simulated pathology in terms of gait and footprint parameters. Gait & posture, 75, 137–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2019.10.027en_US
dc.identifier.issn0966-6362
dc.identifier.issn1879-2219
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2019.10.027
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11436/1323
dc.descriptionWOS: 000496927900021en_US
dc.descriptionPubMed: 31683183en_US
dc.description.abstractBackground: Little is known about whether a simulated upper limb condition reflects a real (burn-injury) upper limb pathology in terms of gait/footprint parameters. Research question: the main aim of this study was to investigate the differences in these parameters between two conditions (real-simulation). Methods: the study included burn patients (n = 30) and a control group of 30 healthy subjects. Gait and footprint parameters were evaluated using the GAITRite electronic walkway. Kinesiophobia and pain were assessed with the Tampa Kinesiophobia Scale and Visual Analog Scale, respectively. Gait evaluation of the control group was performed randomly in two conditions:1. Normal arm swing (control group) 2. Elbow flexed at 90 degrees with a bandage (simulated group). Results: Step and stride length in the burn group were significantly shorter than in the other groups (p < 0.05). Stance phase was significantly higher while swing phase, velocity and cadence were lower in the burn group (p < 0.05). Peak time in the midfoot for both sides were significantly higher in the burn group (p < 0.05). Peak time in the hindfoot for the affected side was significantly lower while peak time in the hindfoot for the intact side was significantly higher in the burn group compared to the simulated group (p < 0.05). There were significant correlations between pain, kinesiophobia and velocity, and cadence in the burn group (p < 0.05). Significance: Compared to the other groups, patients with burn injury have different gait/footprint parameters due to increased pain and kinesiophobia. To determine the effects of upper limb injury and arm swing on gait parameters, a real pathology should be considered rather than a simulated pathology.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherElsevier Ireland Ltden_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectArm swingen_US
dc.subjectBurn injuryen_US
dc.subjectGait analysisen_US
dc.subjectPlantar pressureen_US
dc.subjectSpatiotemporal characteristicsen_US
dc.titleComparison of upper limb burn injury versus simulated pathology in terms of gait and footprint parametersen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.contributor.departmentRTEÜ, Güneysu Fizik Tedavi ve Rehabilitasyon Yüksekokulu, Fizyoterapi ve Rehabilitasyon Bölümüen_US
dc.contributor.institutionauthorErdem, Melek Merve
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.gaitpost.2019.10.027
dc.identifier.volume75en_US
dc.identifier.startpage137en_US
dc.identifier.endpage141en_US
dc.relation.journalGait & Postureen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US


Bu öğenin dosyaları:

Thumbnail

Bu öğe aşağıdaki koleksiyon(lar)da görünmektedir.

Basit öğe kaydını göster