Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2014 Oct 14:9:1759-65.
doi: 10.2147/CIA.S70722. eCollection 2014.

Assessment of forearm and plantar foot load in the elderly using a four-wheeled walker with armrest and the effect of armrest height

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Assessment of forearm and plantar foot load in the elderly using a four-wheeled walker with armrest and the effect of armrest height

Chang-Yong Ko et al. Clin Interv Aging. .

Abstract

Background: Patients with hand and/or wrist pathology are recommended to have a four-wheeled walker with an arm rest (FWW-AR) rather than a standard walker or a standard four-wheeled walker (FWW). However, only a few quantitative studies have been performed to compare upper and lower extremity weight bearing. The aim of this study was to evaluate forearm and foot weight bearing using a FWW-AR and the effect of the armrest height.

Methods: Eleven elderly women (mean age 80.1±5.3 years; mean height 148.5±4.0 cm; mean weight 51.2±9.0 kg) were enrolled. The subjects walked with an FWW-AR, with the elbow in either 90 degree (D90) or 130 degree (D130) flexion, for a distance of 10 m. Surface electromyographic signals were recorded for the upper, middle, and lower trapezius, anterior deltoid, and erector spinae muscles; walking velocity was measured with the subjects weight bearing on their feet and forearms while walking. Simultaneously, the maximum plantar and forearm loads during walking with an FWW-AR were measured.

Results: The normalized foot plantar loads were lower at D90 than at D130, while the normalized forearm load was higher at D90 than at D130 (all P<0.05; left foot, 7.9±0.1 N/kg versus 8.8±0.1 N/kg; right foot, 8.6±0.2 N/kg versus. 9.6±0.1 N/kg; left forearm, 1.8±0.5 N/kg versus 0.8±0.2 N/kg; and right forearm, 2.0±0.5 N/kg versus 1.0±0.2 N/kg, respectively). The surface electromyographic activity of the muscles involved in shoulder elevation and the walking velocity were both lower with the elbow at D90 than at D130 (all P<0.05; left upper trapezius, 98.7%±19.5% versus 132.6%±16.9%; right upper trapezius, 83.4%±10.6% versus 108.1%±10.5%; left anterior deltoid, 94.1%±12.8% versus 158.6%±40.4%; right anterior deltoid, 99.1%±15.0% versus 151.9%±19.4%; and velocity, 0.6±0.1 m/sec versus 0.7±0.1 m/sec, respectively).

Conclusion: Weight bearing on the lower extremities is significantly reduced when the upper extremities are supported during walking with an FWW-AR. Furthermore, the weight bearing profile is dependent on the armrest height.

Keywords: armrest height; forearm; four-wheeled walker with armrest; plantar foot; weight bearing.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Experimental position of the elbow joint.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Results of maximum load (A) on the foot and (B) on the forearm. Notes: *P<0.05. D90, degrees of elbow flexion; D130, 130 degrees of elbow flexion; Normal, without FWW-AR.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Results of normalized surface electromyography. Notes: *P<0.05. D90, degrees of elbow flexion; D130, 130 degrees of elbow flexion. Abbreviations: EMG, electromyography; L, left; R, right; UT, upper trapezius; MT, middle trapezius; LT, lower trapezius; D, anterior deltoid.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Bateni H, Maki BE. Assistive devices for balance and mobility: benefits, demands, and adverse consequences. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86(1):134–145. - PubMed
    1. Van Hook FW, Demonbreun D, Weiss BD. Ambulatory devices for chronic gait disorders in the elderly. Am Fam Physician. 2003;67(8):1717–1724. - PubMed
    1. Yeh HC. Elderly People’s Use of and Attitudes Towards Assistive Devices. Brisbane, Australia: Queensland University of Technology; 2009.
    1. Pardo RD, Deathe AB, Winter DA. Walker user risk index. A method for quantifying stability in walker users. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;72(5):301–305. - PubMed
    1. Cetin E, Muzembo J, Pardessus V, Puisieux F, Thevenon A. Impact of different types of walking aids on the physiological energy cost during gait for elderly individuals with several pathologies and dependent on a technical aid for walking. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2010;53(6):399–405. - PubMed

Publication types