Supervisors info:
Γιαννακόπουλος Χ., Επίκουρος Καθηγητής, ΣΕΦΑΑ, ΕΚΠΑ
Μανδαλίδης Δ., Αναπληρωτής Καθηγητής, ΣΕΦΑΑ, ΕΚΠΑ
Πασχάλης Β., Αναπληρωτής Καθηγητής, ΣΕΦΑΑ, ΕΚΠΑ
Summary:
The aim of this postgraduate thesis is to ascertain the potential effect of the immobilization of the shoulder and the upper limb on the walking and balance of the patient, by examining three functional tests. The participants of the research were 39 healthy men (ν = 24) and women (ν = 15) who were athletes, 18-30 years old, with a normal BMI (18,5-24,9), that hadn’t reported any case history of injuries, pain, or upper and low limb surgeries. The apparatus BTS G–WALK was used for every participant, analyzing their waking and indirectly the balance and the coordination of their movements. Comparisons of indicators between groups were performed using the One-way ANOVA repeated measures model, and pairwise comparisons were performed with the Bonferroni test. A significance value of p < 0,05 was defined as the level of statistically significant result. As far as WALK+ test is concerned, the pair comparisons revealed a difference between the group of “free upper limb” and the group of “immobilization at 30 degrees of abduction” (p = 0,078). Regarding the TURN test, no statistically significant difference was observed in any index. As for the TUG test, a statistically significant difference was found in the index of sitting- standing phase duration between the compared groups (p = 0,045). Pairwise comparisons revealed a difference between the “free upper limb” and 'immobilization at 30 degrees of abduction' groups (p = 0,034). Furthermore, there was a statistically significant difference in the sitting-standing anteroposterior acceleration index between the compared groups (p = 0,050). Pairwise comparisons show a difference between the “immobilization at 30 degrees of abduction” group and the “free upper limb” (p = 0,048) and “simple immobilization” (p = 0,046) groups. The same is true for the sit- standing lateral acceleration index between the compared groups (p = 0,001). Pairwise comparisons revealed a difference between the “free upper extremity” and “immobilization at 30 degrees of abduction” groups (p = 0,001). There was also a statistically significant difference in the standing-sitting anteroposterior acceleration index between the compared groups (p = 0,003). Pairwise comparisons revealed a difference between the “immobilization at 30 degrees of abduction” group and the “free upper extremity” (p = 0,023) and “simple immobilization” (p = 0,002) groups. Finally, there was a statistically significant difference in the standing-sitting lateral acceleration index between the compared groups (p = 0,004). Pairwise comparisons revealed a difference between the “immobilization at 30 degrees of abduction” group and the 'free upper extremity' (p = 0,001) and “simple immobilization” (p = 0,005) groups. The Turn test showed no difference and is therefore the least sensitive for showing the effect of upper limb immobilization on walking, while the walk+ test only affected one index. The TUG test demonstrated significant sensitivity in showing how immobilization of the upper limb affects the subject's gait and coordination function even without having undergone surgical treatment and in the absence of disease. Repeating the study in patients is likely to lead to finding more significant changes.
