| 王小敏,王彩珍,郑桂花.奥塔戈运动联合弹力带抗阻训练对老年肌少症患者的影响[J].中国康复,2026,41(9):545-550 |
| 奥塔戈运动联合弹力带抗阻训练对老年肌少症患者的影响 |
| Effect of Otago exercise program (OEP) combined with elastic band resistance training on elderly patients with sarcopenia |
| |
| DOI：10.3870/zgkf.2026.09.006 |
| 中文关键词: 老年 肌少症 奥塔戈运动 抗阻训练 弹力带 |
| 英文关键词: elderly sarcopenia Otago exercise program resistance training elastic band |
| 基金项目:广州市卫生健康科技项目（20231A011115） |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 198 |
| 全文下载次数: 91 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的：探讨奥塔戈运动（OEP）联合弹力带抗阻训练对老年肌少症患者运动能力及生活质量的影响。方法：采用随机数字表法将211例老年肌少症患者分为常规组、OEP组、弹力带组与联合组，根据脱落标准最终每组各50例。常规组维持原有的日常锻炼模式，OEP组在常规训练的基础上采用OEP运动，弹力带组在常规训练的基础上采用弹力带抗阻训练，联合组在常规训练的基础上采用OEP联合弹力带抗阻训练，对比4组患者干预前后的运动能力、生活质量等。结果：干预3个月后，常规组肌肉质量、上肢握力干预前后比较差异无统计学意义，下肢起坐时间较干预前缩短（P<0.05）；OEP组肌肉质量较干预前增加（P<0.05），上肢握力干预前后比较无统计学意义，下肢起坐时间较干预前缩短（P<0.05）；弹力带组及联合组的肌肉质量、上肢握力均较干预前提高（P<0.05），下肢起坐时间均较干预前缩短（P<0.05）。干预3个月后，联合组肌肉质量与上肢握力均高于其余3组（P<0.05），下肢起坐时间低于其余3组（P<0.05）；弹力带组的肌肉质量高于常规组（P<0.05），但与OEP组比较差异无统计学意义；OEP组、弹力带组及联合组上肢握力与下肢起坐时间与常规组相比差异均无统计学意义。干预3个月后，常规组计时起立行走测试时间较干预前缩短（P<0.05），但Berg平衡量表评分（BBS）干预前后比较差异无统计学意义；OEP组、弹力带组及联合组患者计时起立行走测试时间均较治疗前缩短（P<0.05）、BBS评分均较治疗前提高（P<0.05）；联合组计时起立行走测试时间低于其余3组（P<0.05），BBS评分高于其余3组（P<0.05）；OEP组与弹力带组的BBS评分均高于常规组（P<0.05），但此2组间比较差异无统计学意义。常规组、OEP组及弹力带组的计时起立行走测试时间比较差异无统计学意义。干预3个月后，4组患者SarQol量表得分均较干预前提升（P<0.05），联合组SarQol量表高于其余3组（P<0.05）；OEP组及弹力带组得分均高于常规组（P<0.05），但此2组间比较差异无统计学意义。结论：OEP联合弹力带抗阻训练可改善老年肌少症患者的运动能力、肌肉质量、肌肉力量和生活质量。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective: To explore the effect of Otago exercise program (OEP) combined with elastic band resistance training on physical performance and quality of life in elderly patients with sarcopenia. Methods: Elderly patients with sarcopenia who received treatment in the Department of Rehabilitation from January 2024 to December 2024 were selected as the research subjects. Using a random number table method, the patients were divided into the routine training group, OEP alone group, elastic band training alone group, and combined training group. According to the dropout criteria, 50 patients were finally included in each group. The routine training group maintained their original daily exercise mode; the OEP alone group received OEP on the basis of routine training; the elastic band training alone group received elastic band resistance training on the basis of routine training; and the combined training group received OEP combined with elastic band resistance training on the basis of routine training. Physical performance, quality of life, and other indicators were compared among the four groups before and after the intervention. Results: After 3 months of intervention, the routine group showed no statistically significant changes in muscle mass or upper limb grip strength, while the time for sit-to-stand from a seated position was redu-ced compared to that before intervention (P<0.05). The OEP group exhibited increased muscle mass compared to that before intervention (P<0.05). There was no statistically significant change in upper limb grip strength, and a shortened sit-to-stand time (P<0.05).Both the elastic band group and the combined group demonstrated increased muscle mass and upper limb grip strength compared to those before intervention (P<0.05), as well as shortened sit-to-stand time compared to that before intervention (P<0.05). After 3 months of intervention, the muscle mass and upper limb grip strength in the combined group were higher than those in the other three groups (P<0.05), and the lower limb sit-to-stand time was shorter than that in the other three groups (P<0.05); the muscle mass in the elastic band group was higher than that in the conventional group (P<0.05), but had no statistically significant difference compared to the OEP group; there were no statistically significant differences in upper limb grip strength and lower limb sit-to-stand time between the OEP group, elastic band group, and combined group compared to the conventional group. After 3 months of intervention, the time to complete the Timed Up and Go test in the control group was shortened compared to that before the intervention (P<0.05), but the Berg balance scale (BBS) score showed no statistically significant difference from that before the intervention. In the OEP group, resistance band group, and combined group, the Timed Up and Go test time was all shortened compared to that before treatment (P<0.05), and the BBS scores were all improved compared to those before treatment (P<0.05). The Timed Up and Go test time in the combined group was shorter than that in the other three groups (P<0.05), and the BBS score was higher than that in the other three groups (P<0.05). The BBS scores in both the OEP group and the resistance band group were higher than those in the control group (P<0.05), but the difference between these two groups was not statistically significant . The comparison of Timed Up and Go test time among the conventional group, OEP group, and elastic band group showed no statistically significant difference. After 3 months of intervention, the SarQol scores of patients in all four groups were improved compared with those before intervention (P<0.05), and the SarQol scores in the combined group were higher than those in the other three groups (P<0.05); the scores of the OEP group alone and the elastic band group were both higher than those of the conventional group (P<0.05), but the difference between these two groups was not statistically significant. Conclusion: OEP combined with resistance training using resistance bands can improve exercise capacity, muscle mass, muscle strength, and quality of life in elderly patients with sarcopenia. |
|
查看全文
下载PDF阅读器 HTML全文 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|
