Objective: To evaluate the alterations of walking energy expenditure and plantar pressure distribution of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Material and Methods: Twenty-six subjects of both genders were included in the study, 13 patients suffering from lumbar spinal stenosis served as patient group and 13 healthy participants served as a control group. Preferred walking speeds were determined on the over ground. Oxygen consumption was recorded via a metabolic analyzer during walking on a treadmill for 2 km at preferred walking speed that determined on the over ground. Net oxygen consumption and oxygen cost were calculated for obtaining walking energy consumption. Plantar area was subdivided into six zones to measure plantar pressure distribution with a pedobarography device. Results: Compared with control group, patient group had significantly lower preferred walking speed (62.56±13.90 m/minimum and 76.66±10.90 m/minimum, p=0.008) and maximum walking distance [674.6 (105.0- 2000.0) m and 2000.0 (2000.0-2000.0) m, p=0.019]. However, there were no statistically significant differences between groups in terms of energy expenditure parameters during walking at preferred walking speed (p>0.05). Similar findings were recorded between right and left foot with regard to weight distribution (%) to forefoot/hindfoot in patient group in the static pedobarographic measurements (p>0.05). Contact area value was significantly different between the affected and unaffected side at lateral forefoot in patient group (22.73±2.97 and 24.90±2.9, p=0.001). Conclusion: Patients with lumbar spinal stenosis do not exhibit more pressure on unaffected side compared to healthy subjects in both static and dynamic condition except contact area of lateral forefoot. Patient group optimized energy expenditure and oxygen cost by reducing their preferred walking speed owing to the pain.
Keywords: Spinal stenosis; pain; quality of life; energy metabolism
Amaç: Lomber spinal stenozlu hastaların yürüme enerji tüketimi ve plantar basınç dağılımındaki değişiklikleri değerlendirmek. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışmaya her iki cinsiyetten 26 kişi dâhil edildi, lomber spinal stenoza sahip 13 birey hasta grubu, 13 sağlıklı katılımcı ise kontrol grubu olarak çalışmaya dâhil edildi. Zeminde tercih edilen yürüme hızları belirlendi. Oksijen tüketimi, normal zeminde belirlenen tercih edilen yürüme hızında 2 km boyunca bir koşu bandı üzerinde yürürken, bir metabolik analizör aracılığıyla kaydedildi. Yürüme enerji tüketiminin belirlenebilmesi için yürüme sırasındaki net oksijen tüketimi ve oksijen maliyeti hesaplandı. Plantar bölge, bir pedobarografi cihazı ile plantar basınç dağılımlarını ölçmek için 6 bölgeye ayrıldı. Bulgular: Kontrol grubu ile karşılaştırıldığında, hasta grubunun tercih edilen yürüme hızı (62,56±13,90 m/minimum ve 76,66±10,90 m/minimum, p=0,008) ve maksimum yürüme mesafesi [674,6 (105,0-2000,0) m ve 2000,0 (2000,0-2000,0) m, p=0,019] anlamlı olarak daha düşüktü. Ancak tercih edilen yürüme hızındaki yürüme sırasında enerji tüketimi parametreleri açısından gruplar arasında istatistiksel olarak farklılık yoktu (p>0,05). Statik pedobarografik ölçümlerde hasta grubunda sağ ve sol ayak arasında ön ayak/arka ayak ağırlık dağılımı (%) açısından benzer bulgular kaydedildi (p>0,05). Hasta grubun etkilenen ve etkilenmeyen tarafa ait plantar bölge temas alanı sadece ön ayak laterali için anlamlıydı. (22,73±2,97 ve 24,90±2,9, p=0,001). Sonuç: Lomber spinal stenozu olan hastalar, yan ön ayak temas alanı dışında hem statik hem de dinamik durumda sağlıklı bireylerle karşılaştırıldığında etkilenmeyen ayağa fazla baskı uygulamazlar. Hasta grubu ağrı nedeniyle tercih ettikleri yürüme hızlarını azaltarak enerji tüketimini ve oksijen maliyetini optimize etmiştir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Spinal stenoz; ağrı; yaşam kalitesi; enerji metabolizması
- Conway J, Tomkins CC, Haig AJ. Walking assessment in people with lumbar spinal stenosis: capacity, performance, and self-report measures. Spine J. 2011;11(9):816-23. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Iversen MD, Katz JN. Examination findings and self-reported walking capacity in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Phys Ther. 2001;81(7):1296-306. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Atlas SJ, Delitto A. Spinal stenosis: surgical versus nonsurgical treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;443:198-207. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Porter RW. Spinal stenosis and neurogenic claudication. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996; 21(17):2046-52. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Lee JH, Fell DW, Kim K. Plantar pressure distribution during walking: Comparison of subjects with and without chronic low back pain. J Phys Ther Sci. 2011;23(6):923-6. [Crossref]
- Fayez ES, Elsayed E. Foot pressure asymmetry in patients with mechanical low back pain. Med J Cairo Univ. 2012;80(2):7-10. [Link]
- Tomkins-Lane CC, Holz SC, Yamakawa KS, Phalke VV, Quint DJ, Miner J, et al. Predictors of walking performance and walking capacity in people with lumbar spinal stenosis, low back pain, and asymptomatic controls. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93(4):647-53. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Deepashini H, Omar B, Paungmali A, Amaramalar N, Ohnmar H, Leonard J. Reliability study of plantar pressure measurement among low back pain patients carrying different loads. Middle East J Sci Res. 2014;21(7):1044-50. [Crossref]
- Deen HG, Zimmerman RS, Lyons MK, McPhee MC, Verheijde JL, Lemens SM. Use of the exercise treadmill to measure baseline functional status and surgical outcome in patients with severe lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998;23(2):244-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Rainville J, Childs LA, Pe-a EB, Suri P, Limke JC, Jouve C, et al. Quantification of walking ability in subjects with neurogenic claudication from lumbar spinal stenosis--a comparative study. Spine J. 2012;12(2):101-9. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Dal U, Cimen OB, Incel NA, Adim M, Dag F, Taner Erdogan AT, et al. Fibromyalgia syndrome patients optimize the oxygen cost of walking by preferring a lower walking speed. J Musculoskelet Pain. 2011;19(4):212-7. [Crossref]
- Fritz JM, Delitto A, Welch WC, Erhard RE. Lumbar spinal stenosis: a review of current concepts in evaluation, management, and outcome measurements. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998;79(6):700-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Thomas S, Reading J, Shephard RJ. Revision of the physical activity readiness questionnaire (PAR-Q). Can J Sport Sci. 1992;17(4):338-45. [PubMed]
- Aydın A, Araz A, Asan A. [Visual analog scale and affect grid: an application to Turkish culture]. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları. 2011;14(27):1-13. [Link]
- Boonstra AM, Schiphorst Preuper HR, Reneman MF, Posthumus JB, Stewart RE. Reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale for disability in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Int J Rehabil Res. 2008;31(2):165-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The oswestry disability index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(22):2940-52. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Yakut E, Düger T, Oksüz C, Yörükan S, Ureten K, Turan D, et al. Validation of the Turkish version of the Oswestry Disability Index for patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(5):581-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Koçyiğit H, Aydemir Ö, Fisek G, Ölmez N, Memiş A. Validity and reliability of Turkish version of Short Form 36: A study of a patients with romatoid disorder. Turkish J Drugs Therap.1999;12(2):102-6. [Link]
- Ware JE Jr, Gandek B. Overview of the SF-36 Health Survey and the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) project. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(11):903-12. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Dag F, Dal U, Altinkaya Z, Erdogan AT, Ozdemir E, Yildirim DD, et al. Alterations in energy consumption and plantar pressure distribution during walking in young adults with patellofemoral pain syndrome. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2019;53(1):50-5. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Chung MJ, Wang MJ. Gender and walking speed effects on plantar pressure distribution for adults aged 20-60 years. Ergonomics. 2012;55(2):194-200. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Speksnijder C, Munckhof R, Moonen S, Walenkampa G. The higher the heel the higher the forefoot-pressure in ten healthy women. The Foot. 2005;15(1):17-21. [Crossref]
- Dal U, Erdogan T, Resitoglu B, Beydagi H. Determination of preferred walking speed on treadmill may lead to high oxygen cost on treadmill walking. Gait Posture. 2010; 31(3):366-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Borg GA. Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1982;14(5):377-81. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Gould D, Kelly D, Goldstone L, Gammon J. Examining the validity of pressure ulcer risk assessment scales: developing and using illustrated patient simulations to collect the data. J Clin Nurs. 2001;10(5):697-706. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Rosenbaum D, Becker HP. Plantar pressure distribution measurements. Technical background and clinical applications. Foot Ankle Surg. 1997;3(1):1-14. [Crossref]
- Pal MS, Majumdar D, Bhattacharyya M, Kumar R, Majumdar D. Optimum load for carriage by soldiers at two walking speeds on level ground. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2009;39:68-72. [Crossref]
- Bus SA, de Lange A. A comparison of the 1-step, 2-step, and 3-step protocols for obtaining barefoot plantar pressure data in the diabetic neuropathic foot. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2005;20(9):892-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Bisiaux M, Moretto P. The effects of fatigue on plantar pressure distribution in walking. Gait Posture. 2008;28(4):693-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Iversen MD, Daltroy LH, Fossel AH, Katz JN. The prognostic importance of patient pre-operative expectations of surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Patient Educ Couns. 1998;34(2):169-78. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Yamakawa K, Tsai CK, Haig AJ, Miner JA, Harris MJ. Relationship between ambulation and obesity in older persons with and without low back pain. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2004;28(1):137-43. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Whitehurst M, Brown LE, Eidelson SG, D'angelo A. Functional mobility performance in an elderly population with lumbar spinal stenosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82(4):464-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Deen HG Jr, Zimmerman RS, Lyons MK, McPhee MC, Verheijde JL, Lemens SM. Measurement of exercise tolerance on the treadmill in patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis: a useful indicator of functional status and surgical outcome. J Neurosurg. 1995;83(1):27-30. [Crossref] [PubMed]
.: Process List