Sefton JoEllen M, Hicks-Little Charlie A, Hubbard Tricia J, Clemens Mark G, Yengo Christopher M, Koceja David M, Cordova Mitchell L
Department of Kinesiology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849-5323, USA.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008 Oct;89(10):1991-5. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2008.03.014.
To further understanding of the role that segmental spinal reflexes play in chronic ankle instability (CAI).
A 2 x 2 repeated-measures case-control factorial design. The independent variables were ankle group with 2 levels (healthy, CAI) and stance with 2 levels (single, double legged).
University research laboratory.
Twenty-two participants with CAI and 21 matched healthy controls volunteered.
Not applicable.
The dependent variables were 2 measures of motoneuron pool excitability: paired reflex depression (PRD) and recurrent inhibition.
A 2 x 2 repeated-measures multivariate analysis of variance revealed a significant interaction between group and stance on the linear combination of PRD and recurrent inhibition variables (Wilks lambda=.808, F(2,40)=4.77, P=.014). Follow-up univariate F tests revealed an interaction between group and stance on the PRD (F(1,41)=9.74, P=.003). Follow-up dependent t tests revealed a significant difference between single- and double-legged PRD in the healthy participants (t(20)=-3.76, P=.001) with no difference in CAI participants (t(21)=-0.44, P=.67). Finally, there was a significant difference in recurrent inhibition between healthy (mean, 83.66) and CAI (mean, 90.27) (P=.004).
This study revealed that, compared with healthy participants, CAI participants were less able to modulate PRD when going from a double- to a single-legged stance. Additionally, CAI participants showed higher overall levels of recurrent inhibition when compared with healthy matched controls.
进一步了解节段性脊髓反射在慢性踝关节不稳(CAI)中所起的作用。
2×2重复测量病例对照析因设计。自变量为踝关节组,有2个水平(健康、CAI)和站立姿势,有2个水平(单腿、双腿)。
大学研究实验室。
22名CAI参与者和21名匹配的健康对照者自愿参与。
不适用。
因变量为运动神经元池兴奋性的2项指标:配对反射抑制(PRD)和交互抑制。
2×2重复测量多因素方差分析显示,在PRD和交互抑制变量的线性组合上,组和姿势之间存在显著交互作用(威尔克斯λ=0.808,F(2,40)=4.77,P=0.014)。后续单因素F检验显示,在PRD上组和姿势之间存在交互作用(F(1,41)=9.74,P=0.003)。后续相关t检验显示,健康参与者单腿和双腿PRD之间存在显著差异(t(20)=-3.76,P=0.001),而CAI参与者无差异(t(21)=-0.44,P=0.67)。最后,健康者(均值83.66)和CAI患者(均值90.27)的交互抑制存在显著差异(P=0.004)。
本研究表明,与健康参与者相比,CAI参与者从双腿站立转换为单腿站立时调节PRD的能力较弱。此外,与健康匹配对照组相比,CAI参与者的交互抑制总体水平更高。