header
Image from OpenLibrary

Effect of posterior pelvic tilt on balance, sensory integration and risk of fall in patients with non-specific low back pain / Noha Abbas Abdelaziz Ali ; Supervised Ragia Mohamed Kamel , Enas Elsayed Abutaleb , Rania Reda Mohamed

By: Contributor(s): Material type: TextTextLanguage: English Publication details: Cairo : Noha Abbas Abdelaziz Ali , 2021Description: 83 P. : charts , facsimiles ; 25cmOther title:
  • تأثير الميل الخلفى للحوض على الاتزان والادراك الحسى و خطر السقوط عند مرضى الام اسفل الظهر الغير محددة [Added title page title]
Subject(s): Available additional physical forms:
  • Issued also as CD
Dissertation note: Thesis (M.Sc.) - Cairo University - Faculty of Physical Therapy - Department of Basic Science Summary: Background: Low back pain (LBP) is a common musculoskeletal problem that can affect activities of daily living and functional movement. LBP patients with posterior pelvic tilt compensate for their malalignment by shifting their center of gravity (COG) leading to balance disturbance. Purpose: The study was designed to determine the effect of posterior pelvic tilt on dynamic postural stability, postural sway control, sensory integration, risk of fall, and functional disability in patients with non-specific low back pain. Method: Fifty patients, with non-specific low back pain, were assigned equally into Group A with posterior pelvic tilt, while Group B with normal anterior pelvic tilt. Outcome measures included pelvic angles measured by the GPS 600 device, physical functioning assessed by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the Biodex Balance System{u2122} SD measured the limits of Stability test, m-CTSIB, Fall Risk Test. Result: there was a significant decrease in the overall dynamic balance of Group A compared with Group B (p < 0.001), there was a significant increase in sway index at eyes opened and eyes closed on firm and foam surfaces for Group A compared with Group B (p < 0.01), there was a significant decrease in the (ODI) of Group B compared with Group A (p = 0.0001), and there was no significant difference in the risk of fall between Group A and B (p = 0.14)
Tags from this library: No tags from this library for this title. Log in to add tags.
Star ratings
    Average rating: 0.0 (0 votes)
Holdings
Item type Current library Home library Call number Copy number Status Date due Barcode
Thesis Thesis قاعة الرسائل الجامعية - الدور الاول المكتبة المركزبة الجديدة - جامعة القاهرة Cai01.21.09.M.Sc.2021.No.E (Browse shelf(Opens below)) Not for loan 01010110084422000
CD - Rom CD - Rom مخـــزن الرســائل الجـــامعية - البدروم المكتبة المركزبة الجديدة - جامعة القاهرة Cai01.21.09.M.Sc.2021.No.E (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 84422.CD Not for loan 01020110084422000

Thesis (M.Sc.) - Cairo University - Faculty of Physical Therapy - Department of Basic Science

Background: Low back pain (LBP) is a common musculoskeletal problem that can affect activities of daily living and functional movement. LBP patients with posterior pelvic tilt compensate for their malalignment by shifting their center of gravity (COG) leading to balance disturbance. Purpose: The study was designed to determine the effect of posterior pelvic tilt on dynamic postural stability, postural sway control, sensory integration, risk of fall, and functional disability in patients with non-specific low back pain. Method: Fifty patients, with non-specific low back pain, were assigned equally into Group A with posterior pelvic tilt, while Group B with normal anterior pelvic tilt. Outcome measures included pelvic angles measured by the GPS 600 device, physical functioning assessed by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the Biodex Balance System{u2122} SD measured the limits of Stability test, m-CTSIB, Fall Risk Test. Result: there was a significant decrease in the overall dynamic balance of Group A compared with Group B (p < 0.001), there was a significant increase in sway index at eyes opened and eyes closed on firm and foam surfaces for Group A compared with Group B (p < 0.01), there was a significant decrease in the (ODI) of Group B compared with Group A (p = 0.0001), and there was no significant difference in the risk of fall between Group A and B (p = 0.14)

Issued also as CD

There are no comments on this title.

to post a comment.