Analysis of Vertical Ground Reaction Force Variables Using Foot Scans in Hemiplegic Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the differences in the vertical ground reaction force (GRF) variables of hemiplegic patients compared with a control group, and between the affected and unaffected limbs of hemiplegic patients using foot scans. METHODS: Patients (n=20) with hemiplegia and healthy volunteers (n=20) underwent vertical force analysis. We measured the following: the first and second peak forces (F1, F2) and the percent stances at which they occurred (T1, T2); the vertical force impulse (VFI) and stance times. The GRF results were compared between the hemiplegic patients and control individuals, and between the affected and unaffected limbs of hemiplegic patients. Additionally, we analyzed the impulse of the unaffected limb according to the motor assessment scale (MAS), Brunnstrom stage, and a Timed Up and Go Test. RESULTS: The F1s and F2s of the affected and unaffected limbs were significantly less than those of the normal control individuals (p<0.05). The T1s of both the affected and unaffected limbs of the patients were greater than control individuals, whilst the T2s were lower (p<0.05). Greater impulses and stance times were recorded on both sides of the patients than in the limbs of the control individuals (p<0.05). The MAS, Brunnstrom stage and Timed Up and Go Test results were significantly correlated with the VFI of the unaffected limbs (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: The high impulse values of the unaffected limb were associated with complications during gait rehabilitation. Therefore, these results suggest that unaffected limbs should also be taken into consideration in these patients.

Changes in Activation of Abdominal Muscles at Selected Angles During Trunk Exercise by Using Ultrasonography.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the changes of activation of the abdominal muscles depending on exercise angles and whether the activation of rectus abdominis differs according to the location, during curl up and leg raise exercises, by measuring the thickness ratio of abdominal muscles using ultrasonography. METHODS: We examined 30 normal adults without musculoskeletal problems. Muscle thickness was measured in the upper rectus abdominis (URA), lower rectus abdominis (LRA), obliquus externus (EO), obliquus internus (IO), and transversus abdominis (TrA), at pre-determined angles (30°, 60°, 90°) and additionally at the resting angle (0°). Muscle thickness ratio was calculated by dividing the resting (0°) thickness for each angle, and was used as reflection of muscle activity. RESULTS: The muscle thickness ratio was significantly different depending on the angles in URA and LRA. For curl up-URA p=0 (30°<60°), p=0 (60°>90°), p=0.44 (30°<90°) and LRA p=0.01 (30°<60°), p=0 (60°>90°), p=0.44 (30°>90°), respectively, by one-way ANOVA test-and for leg raise-URA p=0 (30°<60°), p=0 (60°<90°), p=0 (30°<90°) and LRA p=0.01 (30°<60°), p=0 (60°<90°), p=0 (30°<90°), respectively, by one-way ANOVA test-exercises, but not in the lateral abdominal muscles (EO, IO, and TrA). Also, there was no significant difference in the muscle thickness ratio of URA and LRA during both exercises. In the aspect of muscle activity, there was significant difference in the activation of RA muscle by selected angles, but not according to location during both exercises. CONCLUSION: According to this study, exercise angle is thought to be an important contributing factor for strengthening of RA muscle; however, both the exercises are thought to have no property of strengthening RA muscle selectively based on the location.

A comparison of dosimetric parameters between tomotherapy and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy in rectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Tomotherapy for intensity-modulated radiation has been demonstrated to reduce unnecessary irradiations to adjacent organs at risk (OARs). The purpose of this study was to compare the dosimetric parameters between Tomotherapy and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) in rectal cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We redesigned three-dimensional conformal plans for 20 rectal cancer patients who had received short-course preoperative radiotherapy with Tomotherapy. The target coverage for 3D-CRT and Tomotherapy was evaluated with the following including the mean dose, V(nGy), D(min), D(max), radiation conformality index (RCI), and radical dose homogeneity index (rDHI). RESULTS: The mean PTV dose for Tomotherapy is significantly higher than that observed for the 3D-CRT (p = 0.043). However, there is no significant difference in the V(23.25Gy), V(26.25Gy), V(27.5Gy), and RCI values between Tomotherapy and 3D-CRT. However, the average rDHI (p < 0.001) value for Tomotherapy was significantly lower than that reported for the 3D-CRT. Tomotherapy significantly lowered the mean level of irradiation doses to the bladder, small bowel, and femur heads as compared to 3D-CRT. CONCLUSIONS: Tomotherapy could produce a favorable target coverage and significant dose reduction for the OARs at the expense of acceptable dose inhomogeneity of the PTV compared with 3D-CRT in rectal cancer patients.

Dosimetric evaluation of Tomotherapy and four-box field conformal radiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer.

PURPOSE: To report the results of dosimetric comparison between intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) using Tomotherapy and four-box field conformal radiotherapy (CRT) for pelvic irradiation of locally advanced rectal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who received a short course preoperative chemoradiotherapy (25 Gy in 5 fractions) on the pelvis using Tomotherapy, between July 2010 and December 2010, were selected. Using their simulation computed tomography scans, Tomotherapy and four-box field CRT plans with the same dose schedule were evaluated, and dosimetric parameters of the two plans were compared. For the comparison of target coverage, we analyzed the mean dose, Vn Gy, Dmin, Dmax, radical dose homogeneity index (rDHI), and radiation conformity index (RCI). For the comparison of organs at risk (OAR), we analyzed the mean dose. RESULTS: Tomotherapy showed a significantly higher mean target dose than four-box field CRT (p = 0.001). But, V26.25 Gy and V27.5 Gywere not significantly different between the two modalities. Tomotherapy showed higher Dmax and lower Dmin. The Tomotherapy plan had a lower rDHI than four-box field CRT (p = 0.000). Tomotherapy showed better RCI than four-box field CRT (p = 0.007). For OAR, the mean irradiated dose was significantly lower in Tomotherapy than four-box field CRT. CONCLUSION: In locally advanced rectal cancer, Tomotherapy delivers a higher conformal radiation dose to the target and reduces the irradiated dose to OAR than four-box field CRT.