| 张路,赵沃娃,葛颖,陈丽霞,王含,刘颖.爆发力训练对帕金森病患者康复治疗作用的随机对照研究[J].中国康复,2024,39(6):344-349 |
| 爆发力训练对帕金森病患者康复治疗作用的随机对照研究 |
| Additional power training in patients with Parkinson’s disease: a randomized controlled trial |
| |
| DOI： |
| 中文关键词: 帕金森病 康复 爆发力训练 |
| 英文关键词: Parkinson’s disease rehabilitation power training |
| 基金项目:中国医学科学院临床与转化医学研究基金(2020-12M-C&T-B-041) |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 801 |
| 全文下载次数: 880 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的：比较爆发力训练结合常规训练（PRT）和单独常规训练（RT）对帕金森病（PD）患者运动症状、力量、平衡、功能表现和生活质量的效果。方法：39例PD患者被随机分配到PRT组20例和RT组19例，均予以每周3次（周一、三、五）的训练，共为期4周。RT组予以拉伸、力量、平衡、步态训练；PRT组除以上外，额外使用6种器械提供低负荷、高速的爆发力训练。于基线及4周训练结束后次日测量统一帕金森病评定量表III （UPDRS-III）,膝伸展/屈曲的最大峰值力矩（EPT/FPT）、总功（ETP/FTP）和平均峰值力矩（EAT/FAT）；Berg平衡量表（BBS）；起立-行走计时测试（TUGT）；5次坐立试验（FTSST）；39项帕金森病生活质量问卷（PPDQ-39）。结果：2组治疗后UPDRS-III及PDQ-39评分均较治疗前明显降低（P＜0.05，0.01），FTSST时间均较治疗前明显缩短（P＜0.01），2组治疗后TUGT均较治疗前有减少，但差异无统计学意义；2组EPT、ETP、EAT、FPT、BBS评分均较治疗前明显提高（P＜0.01），RT组FTP、FAT也有显著提高（P＜0.05）；组间比较，2组以上各项评定均未发现统计学差异。结论：PRT和RT方案都能显著改善PD患者的功能表现和生活质量；PRT与RT相比未发现有明显优势。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective: To compare the effects of power training combined with routine training (PRT) and routine training alone (RT) on motor symptoms, strength, balance, functional performance, and quality of life in patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD). Methods: A total of 39 patients ［Hoehn and Yahr=1-3; Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale-III (UPDRS-III)=21.61±7.64］ were randomly assigned to the PRT group (n=20) or RT group (n=19) involving 3 times/week (Monday, Wednesday, Friday) of supervised training for 4 weeks. Including stretching, strength, balance, gait trainingas in the RT group, 6 instruments were used to provide low-load, high-velocity power training for the PRT group. The UPDRS-III, quadriceps femoris extension (E) and hamstring flexion (F) peak torque (PT), total power (TP), and average torque (AT), Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Timed Up-and-Go test (TUGT), 5 times sit-to-stand test (FTSST), and the 39-item Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39) were measured at baseline and on the day after the completion of 4-week training. Results: Both training groups showed significantly better scores (P<0.05) on the UPDRS-III, EPT, ETP, EAT, FPT, BBS, FTSST, and PDQ-39 after training. No significant differences were detected between the PRT and RT groups. Conclusion: Both PRT and RT programs can significantly improve physical performance and quality of life in patients with PD. PRT showed no advantage over RT. |
|
查看全文
下载PDF阅读器 HTML全文 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|
