1 / 5

Comparison of seat, waist, and arm sit-to-stand assistance modalities in elderly population

Comparison of seat, waist, and arm sit-to-stand assistance modalities in elderly population. Jeswin Jeyasurya, MASc; H. F. Machiel Van der Loos, PhD; Antony Hodgson, PhD; Elizabeth A. Croft, PhD. Aim

ivory
Download Presentation

Comparison of seat, waist, and arm sit-to-stand assistance modalities in elderly population

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comparison of seat, waist, and arm sit-to-stand assistance modalities in elderly population Jeswin Jeyasurya, MASc; H. F. Machiel Van der Loos, PhD; Antony Hodgson, PhD; Elizabeth A. Croft, PhD

  2. Aim • Investigate mechanics of assisted sit-to-stand (STS) motion to better understand how load-sharing STS mechanisms may facilitate STS motions while still requiring activation of leg muscles. • Relevance • STS motion is important for ambulatory adults’ independent function and daily activities. • However, full dependence on mechanical STS assistance can lead to leg muscle atrophy.

  3. Method • Conducted experiments with 17 nondisabled older adults performing: • Unassisted STS rises. • Assisted STS rises with grab bar, arm, seat, and waist assistance. • Evaluated: • Each mode of rise base on subject questionnaire. • Key biomechanical metrics relating to stability, knee effort reduction, and rise trajectory.

  4. Results • Seat and waist assistance provided: • Significant improvements in stability metrics. • Reductions in required knee torques over unassisted rises and bar assistance. • Subjects preferred seat and bar assistance.

  5. Conclusion • Seat-assisted STS modality is favored for nonclinical applications. • Further testing of this modality with clinical population is indicated.

More Related