Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
IntroductionPostural abnormalities are common in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) and lead to gait abnormalities. Relationships between changes in the trunk posture of PD patients and gait profile score (GPS) and gait spatiotemporal parameters are poorly investigated. The aim of the current study was to investigate the relationships between trunk posture, GPS, and gait spatiotemporal parameters, in patients with PD.Materials and methodsTwenty-three people with PD and nineteen age-matched healthy people participated in this study. A 3D gait kinematical analysis was applied to all participants using the Plug-In Gait Full BodyTM tool. Trunk and limb kinematics patterns and gait spatio-temporal parameters of patients with PD and the control group were compared. Additionally, correlations between trunk kinematics patterns, gait spatio-temporal parameters, and GPS of the PD group were tested.ResultsCadence, opposite foot off, step time, single support, double support, foot off, gait speed, trunk kinematics, and GPS showed significant differences between the two groups (p ≤ 0.05). Posture of the trunk during gait was not related to the spatio-temporal parameters and gait profile score in the PD group. The trunk flexor pattern influenced GPS domains, mainly of the ankle and the knee.Discussion and conclusionsFlexed posture of the trunk in patients with PD seems to influence both ankle and knee movement patterns during the gait. The GPS analysis provided direct and simplified kinematic information for the PD group. These results may have implications for understanding the importance of considering the positioning of the trunk during gait.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.