Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Public Health and Nursing, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
PLoS One. 2018 Apr 4;13(4):e0195111. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0195111. eCollection 2018.
As many similar symptoms are reported in fibromyalgia (FM) and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), underlying defcits may potentially also be similar. Postural disequilibrium reported in both conditions may thus be explained by similar deviations in postural control strategies. 75 females (25/group FM, CFS and control, age 19-49 years) performed 60 s of quiet standing on a force platform in each of three conditions: 1) firm surface with vision, 2) firm surface without vision and, 3) compliant surface with vision. Migration of center of pressure was decomposed into a slow and a fast component denoting postural sway and lateral forces controlling postural sway, analyzed in the time and frequency domains. Main effects of group for the antero-posterior (AP) and medio-lateral (ML) directions showed that patients displayed larger amplitudes (AP, p = 0.002; ML, p = 0.021) and lower frequencies (AP, p < 0.001; ML, p < 0.001) for the slow component, as well as for the fast component (amplitudes: AP, p = 0.010; ML, p = 0.001 and frequencies: AP, p = 0.001; ML, p = 0.029) compared to controls. Post hoc analyses showed no significant differences between patient groups. In conclusion, both the CFS- and the FM-group differed from the control group. Larger postural sway and insufficient control was found in patients compared to controls, with no significant differences between the two patient groups.
由于纤维肌痛症 (FM) 和慢性疲劳综合征 (CFS) 报告了许多类似的症状,潜在的缺陷也可能类似。因此,这两种情况下报告的姿势失衡可能是由于姿势控制策略的相似偏差所致。75 名女性(每组 25 名,FM、CFS 和对照组,年龄 19-49 岁)在三种情况下分别在力台上进行了 60 秒的安静站立:1)有视觉的坚固表面,2)无视觉的坚固表面,3)有视觉的顺应性表面。中心压力的迁移被分解为表示姿势摆动的慢分量和控制姿势摆动的侧向力的快分量,在时域和频域中进行分析。组的主效应在前后 (AP) 和中间-侧面 (ML) 方向上显示,患者的慢分量的幅度较大 (AP,p = 0.002;ML,p = 0.021),频率较低 (AP,p < 0.001;ML,p < 0.001),快分量的幅度也较大 (AP,p = 0.010;ML,p = 0.001) 和频率 (AP,p = 0.001;ML,p = 0.029) 与对照组相比。事后分析显示两组患者之间没有显著差异。总之,CFS 和 FM 组与对照组不同。与对照组相比,患者的姿势摆动较大,控制不足,两组患者之间无显著差异。