文章摘要
陆沈吉,吴智刚,蔡萍,冀锐,范帅,蔡斌.足底压力动态检测对慢性踝关节不稳患者的评估与临床应用[J].中国康复,2020,35(12):641-644
足底压力动态检测对慢性踝关节不稳患者的评估与临床应用
Evaluation of chronic ankle instability using dynamic foot pressure detection
  
DOI:
中文关键词: 慢性踝关节不稳  足底压力  康复
英文关键词: chronic ankle instability  plantar pressure  rehabilitation
基金项目:上海交通大学“医工交叉基金”(YG2015MS08)
作者单位
陆沈吉 上海交通大学医学院附属第九人民医院康复医学科上海 200011 
吴智刚 海南西部中心医院康复医学科海南 儋州 571700 
蔡萍 上海交通大学电子信息与电气工程学院上海 200240 
冀锐 上海交通大学电子信息与电气工程学院上海 200240 
范帅 上海交通大学医学院附属第九人民医院康复医学科上海 200011 
蔡斌 上海交通大学医学院附属第九人民医院康复医学科上海 200011 
摘要点击次数: 5682
全文下载次数: 3867
中文摘要:
  目的:使用上海交通大学电子信息与电气工程学院研发的足底压力动态检测装置,评估慢性踝关节不稳(CAI)患者足底压力中心(COP)分布。方法:收集健康受试者28例为对照组,CAI患者24例为观察组,其中机械性不稳(MAI)患者13例,功能性不稳(FAI)患者11例,分别进行足底压力动态检测,测量COP动摇轨迹长、前/后(A/P)动摇轨迹长、左/右(M/L)动摇轨迹长、 A/P动摇范围及M/L动摇范围。结果:双足站立时,观察组COP动摇轨迹总长度,A/P和M/L动摇轨迹长,A/P和M/L动摇范围均明显大于对照组(均P<0.05);单足站立时,观察组除了健侧足在A/P动摇轨迹长较对照组比较差异无统计学意义外,患侧足与健侧足的其余COP参数均明显大于对照组(均P<0.05),且观察组患侧足的M/L动摇范围更明显大于健侧足(P<0.05);观察组患侧足单足站立时, MAI患者COP动摇轨迹长、A/P和M/L动摇轨迹长、M/L动摇范围均明显大于FAI患者(均P<0.05),但A/P动摇范围比较差异无统计学意义。结论:CAI患者M/L方向的COP参数变化更敏感,使用该设备进行COP参数评估有助于制定个性化康复治疗方案及随访,提高康复治疗的趣味性及患者依从性。
英文摘要:
  Objective: To evaluate the parameters of center of pressure (COP) in patients with CAI by using a dynamic detection device developed by the School of Electronic Information and Electrical Engineering of Shanghai JiaoTong University. Methods: We recruited 28 healthy subjects as control group and 24 patients with CAI as treatment group including 13 patients with mechanical instability (MAI) and 11 patients with functional instability (FAI).The plantar pressure was dynamically detected, and the COP sway length, anterior/posterior(A/P) sway length, medial/lateral(M/L) sway length,A/P sway range and M/L sway range were measured.Results:When standing on both feet, the total length of COP sway, the sway of A/P and M/L in the treatment group were longer, and the sway range of A/P and M/L was significantly larger than those in the control group (all P<0.05 ). When standing on one foot, the COP parameters of the affected side foot and unaffected side foot were significantly larger than those of the control group (all P<0.05) except A/P sway length of unaffected leg, and the M/L sway range of the affected side foot in the treatment group was significantly larger than that of the unaffected side foot (all P<0.05). We observed differences between MAI and FAI patients regarding COP sway length, M/L sway length, A/P sway length and L/L sway range(all P<0.05), but there was no significant difference in A/P shaking range.Conclusion: It indicates that for CAI patients, the change of COP parameter in M/L direction is more sensitive. The device would be helpful for the personalized rehabilitation program and follow up procedure, and increasing patients’ interestingness and compliance.
查看全文   下载PDF阅读器  HTML全文
关闭
本刊微信二维码