Improvement of Balance, Motor Aspects, and Activities of Daily Living in Parkinson’s Disease after a Sequential Multimodal Aquatic- and Land-Based Intervention Program

Iucksch, Dielise Debona; Siega, Juliana; Leveck, Giovanna Cristina; Araujo, Luize Bueno de; Mélo, Tainá Ribas; Israel, Vera Lúcia

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/2762863

Rehabilitation Research and Practice

On this page

Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion Conclusions Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2023 | Article ID 2762863 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/2762863

Improvement of Balance, Motor Aspects, and Activities of Daily Living in Parkinson’s Disease after a Sequential Multimodal Aquatic- and Land-Based Intervention Program

Dielise Debona Iucksch,¹Juliana Siega,¹Giovanna Cristina Leveck,¹Luize Bueno de Araujo,¹Tainá Ribas Mélo,^1,2,3and Vera Lúcia Israel^1,4

Academic Editor: Valentina Varalta

Received13 May 2022

Revised29 Nov 2022

Accepted16 Dec 2022

Published09 Jan 2023

Abstract

Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative, with heterogeneous clinical conditions and motor changes that reduce functioning. Postural instability is one of the motor aspects of disease progression, with a potential increase in the risk of falls, consequently affecting the activities of daily living (ADL). The objective of this study was to verify the influence of a multimodal intervention program (MIP) sequentially applied in aquatic- (AEs) and land-based environments (LEs) on balance, postural control, motor activities, and ADL in people with PD. It is an interventional clinical study with patients in stages 1 to 4 in the Hoehn and Yahr scale, assessed with Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Mini-Balance Evaluation System Test (Mini-BESTest), Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) II and III, Dynamic Gait Index (DGI), and quiet stance (QS) analysis in a force platform. The MIP was conducted sequentially with aquatic- (AIs) and land-based interventions (LIs) for 12 weeks each, twice a week, each session lasting 1 hour, and a 12-week interval between interventions. The comparison analysis was made with Friedman ANOVA, and the multiple comparisons with Wilcoxon signed-rank, Bonferroni correction, and effect size (). The sample comprised 18 people with PD ( years). The AI and the full intervention (FI) had a large effect according to BBS. With Mini-BESTest, the LI and FI had a large effect. According to UPDRS II, the MIP improved ADL after LI, with a medium effect, and the motor aspects of UPDRS III improved after LI and FI, with a large effect. DGI was not sensitive in the analyses, with a ceiling effect after FI. No differences were identified in QS analyses. This research identified improved balance, ADL, and motor aspects in people with PD after sequential MIP in AI and LI, indicating that land-based and aquatic interventions are complementary and advantageous to people with PD.

1. Introduction

Parkinson’s disease (PD) is the second most common neurodegenerative disease, reported as a motor clinical syndrome, although its clinical condition is rather heterogeneous and variable. The main motor characteristics are bradykinesia, muscle stiffness, tremor at rest, and postural and gait changes. Nonmotor characteristics include olfactory dysfunction, cognitive changes, psychiatric symptoms, sleep disorders, autonomic disorders, pain, and fatigue [1].

These various motor changes contribute to people with PD progressively decreased functioning—among which postural control changes stand out, impacting the activities of daily living (ADL), independence, and gait capacity [2, 3]. Postural instability is one of the signs of disease progression [4, 5] and a potential increase in the risk of falls [6–8], culminating in less social participation, greater sedentarism, and depression [9] and characterizing it as one of the greatest problems in PD [10]. Moreover, evidence indicates that the necessary use of dopamine in PD improves gait-related mobility without improving reactive postural responses, leading to a likely iatrogenic increase in the risk of falls, which would only be improved with rehabilitation and physical exercise [11].

Postural control may be expressed by measures such as the relationship between the support base and the center of mass, which has reflections on most functional motor tasks in humans [12, 13]. In PD, progressively impaired reactive and anticipatory postural control causes stability loss and both static and dynamic balance deficit, limiting gait and performance in routine activities, decreasing mobility, and possibly leading to falls. Consequently, a cycle of immobility and falls appears and is aggravated by the fear of falls due to postural instability [14, 15].

Physical exercises are a treatment option that may help breaking the cycle of immobility and postural instability [16]. The multimodal/multicomponent interventions are an option that simultaneously combining various forms of exercises to address different problems [17, 18]. They can enhance drug treatment effectiveness and delay disease progression, with long-term beneficial effects on motor aspects, routine activities, and the severity of PD [19].

Recent literature shows evidence that balance training can improve motor symptoms, mobility, balance confidence, and thus quality of life of people with PD [16, 20]. Osborne et al. [20] mention that balance training in aquatic environment can be considered over land-based therapy to improve fear of falling and quality of life. The use of different environments brings further neurosensory motor stimulus that are important for the motor skills [21, 22]. In the aquatic environment, these stimuli come from the physiological action of thermal and physical properties and also promote changes on the mechanics of the immersed body [23, 24]. Instability while immersed causes continuous postural adjustments, which also leads to proprioception and muscle control [25]. A study comparing aquatic and land environments found a reduction of fall rate in the hydrotherapy group [26]. The authors concluded that hydrotherapy allows a proprioceptive training that contributes to increase the limit of stability, giving the time to activate postural reactions to perturbations in protected conditions [26]. Thus, it can be understood that exercise in both environments can be additional and beneficial for persons with DP.

Hence, multimodal aquatic- and land-based interventions aiming for improved postural motor control outcomes are clinically relevant, as they may lead to functional maintenance or gains in people with PD. Thus, multimodal training has good initial evidence for PD—although systematic reviews and meta-analyses [19, 27, 28] point out gaps regarding the optimal dosage and effects of multimodal intervention programs (MIPs).

Therefore, the objective of this study was to verify the influence of a sequential MIP in aquatic (AES) and land environments (LES) on balance, postural control, motor aspects, and ADL in people with PD.

2. Materials and Methods

This is an interventional clinical study, addressing conditions before and after sequential multimodal interventions, as subjects participated in MIP in both AE and LE.

The study was registered in the Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials under number RBR-6hnqcv and was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Department of Health Sciences of the Federal University of Paraná, Paraná, Brazil (CAAE 66781417.4.0000.0102 and Evaluation Report 2.200.372). The study followed the Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Design (TREND) statement checklist.

2.1. Participants

Recruiting, assignment, evaluation, and intervention took place from March 2018 to December 2019. Each intervention group had a maximum of 6 persons at the same appointment. People with a clinical diagnosis of idiopathic PD in stages 1 to 4 on the modified Hoehn and Yahr (H&Y) scale, of both sexes, aged more than 40 years, with a medical certificate to do physical activities, and attend a heated pool were included in the study by convenience. The exclusion criteria were as follows: not being able to walk, whether or not due to PD; having other diseases that might interfere with physical assessments (e.g., balance changes of vestibular origin); having visual or auditory sensory deficits that hindered participants from following verbal or visual instructions; being contraindicated to attend heated pools; changing levodopa-based drug intake parameters during the study period; changing baseline physical activities during the study period; not agreeing with the informed consent form; and missing assessments or more than 10% of interventions.

2.2. Assessment Procedures

Data were collected in the city of Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil, in partnership with the Parkinson’s Association of Paraná.

The assessment and intervention were performed by physiotherapists with research and clinical experience in PD. All assessment scales were selected based on the European Guidelines for PD [29], in accordance with the domains in the International Classification of Functioning (ICF) [30] regarding PD. Participants were assessed in the “on” phase of the medication. Primary outcome was postural control. It was measured with Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest), and postural control during quiet standing (QS) on a force platform. The secondary outcomes were motor aspects and ADL. They were assessed with Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) sections II and III and Dynamic Gait Index (DGI).

BBS was applied to assess the limited performance of ADL that requires static balance. It has 14 items on functional tasks, scoring 0 to 4 each, with a total score of 56—the higher the score, the higher the function level [31]. This tool helps establish the risk of falls in people with PD [29, 32], at the 52-point cutoff score for nonfallers and 47.6 for fallers [33].

Static and dynamic balance was assessed with the Mini-BESTest, which assesses the level of balance ability with 14 tests, scoring 0 to 2, with 4 subscores, anticipatory postural adjustments (6 points), reactive postural responses (6 points), sensory orientation (6 points), and gait stability (10 points). The maximum total score is 28 points; higher values indicate less impaired body balance [34, 35].

The UPDRS has 4 parts, of which parts II and III were used in this study. They, respectively, address motor experiences of daily living and motor functions and activities. The score ranges from 0 (normal) to 4 (severe)—higher scores are related to greater impairments [29, 36].

Balance during gait activities was assessed with DGI [37], which comprises eight activities that reflect the capacity to change gait according to task requirements in the scale. Scores range from 0 to 3 in each item—0 indicates the lowest functioning level and the greatest likelihood of falls. The maximum total score is 24, whereas scores equal to or lower than 19 indicate a greater risk of falls [38].

The QS assessment aimed to identify how the support base positioning and visual afference influence postural control by quantifying center of pressure (COP) sway before and after the interventions. Participants stood still on a force platform (AMTI^®, model OR-06, USA) with 100 Hz sampling frequency, upper limbs parallel to the trunk, three times, for 30 seconds in each foot posture, in two conditions: (i) feet together and eyes open (EO_FT); (ii) feet together and eyes closed (EC_FT). In the eyes-open task, participants looked at a fixed point at eye level, 2 meters away [34]. In the first assessment, the positioning of each participant’s feet was drawn on a paper the size of the platform, which was used in the subsequent assessments. The total length of COP trajectory (TL), anteroposterior (APA) and mediolateral COP amplitude (MLA), total sway displacement (TSD), total mean velocity (TMV), and area (AREA) of COP displacement was obtained and analyzed following the routine described by Lazarotto et al. [39], in MatLab^® 9.1.0 (MathWorks, Inc.).

Assessments took place in four moments (Figure 1), namely: AS1-initial assessment, before the aquatic intervention; AS2-reassessment, after 12 weeks of aquatic intervention; AS3-after a 12-week follow-up with no interventions, which was also used as assessment before the land-based intervention; AS4-final reassessment after 12 weeks of land-based intervention.

The effects of the interventions were verified by comparing aquatic intervention to baseline (AS2-AS1), follow-up to identify retention of results 3 months after aquatic intervention (AS3-AS2) and to identify retention of results in relation to before any intervention (AS3-AS1). After land-based intervention, it was compared with the state of participants before it (AS4-AS3) and full intervention (aquatic+land-based) (AS4-AS1).

2.3. Intervention Program

The MIP was conducted sequentially in AE and LE for 12 weeks, twice a week, with 1 hour sessions, and a 12-week interval (follow-up) between them. It was based on the European Physiotherapy Guideline for PD [29], following the premise of oriented task training for gait, lower limb muscle strength and power, and static and dynamic balance.

MIP had the same structure for both environments, comprising three phases: 1: warm-up (15 minutes); 2: the main part (30 minutes); and 3: relaxation/cooldown (5 minutes) (Table 1). The complete description of aquatic intervention (AI) can be found at Siega et al. [40]. The land-based intervention (LI) exercise program is described at Iucksch [41]. The interventions took place at Rehabilitation Hospital of Paraná in Curitiba, Paraná.

The interventions had load progressions every 4 weeks. Functional mobility activities progressed as they were asked to pay greater attention, use higher quality movements, and use greater velocity and step length in gait exercises. Muscle strength and power training progressed in intensity according to the Borg rating of perceived exertion scale [42], gradually increasing every 4 weeks and maintaining the exertion level between 12 and 17 points. In AE, load progressed individually and every 4 weeks by including hydrodynamic equipment (swim fin), and in LE, by the resistance of elastic bands. Regarding balance exercises, new exercises were included every 4 weeks, with increasing complexity, less support of upper limbs, and a smaller support base.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The comparison analysis between the various moments (AS1, AS2, AS3, and AS4) in the same group was made with Friedman ANOVA () and multiple-paired comparisons with Wilcoxon signed-rank () and Bonferroni correction, in SPSS^® Statistics 27. The effect size was calculated by ().

3. Results

The study sample comprised 18 people with PD ( years; 95% CI 60.99-72.67), most of them (66.7%) males, in H&Y stages 1 to 4, median 3; stages 2 and 4 were the most frequent ones in the sample (Table 2).

AI and LI had positive effects on static and dynamic balance, motor aspects, and ADL in people with PD, assessed with BBS, Mini-BESTest, and UPDRS II and III (Table 3). BBS results were significant (, ), with improved balance after AI (, ; ) and a large effect size—which were maintained in the follow-up (, ) and in the full intervention (FI) that represents AI combined with LI (, ; ), with a large effect size.

The difference in the Mini-BESTest (, ) was in improved balance after LI (, ; ) and FI (, ; ), both with a large effect.

The proposed MIP significantly improved the ADL, assessed with UPDRS II (, ); UPDRS II scores were lower in the post-LI comparison (, ; ), with a medium effect.

Also, UPDRS III identified a significant motor improvement after AE and LE training (, ), with a trend toward lower scores after AI (, ; ), with a medium effect; after LI (, ; ), with a large effect; and in the end of the FI (, ; ), with a large effect. A trend toward losses was identified in the follow-up (between the end of AI and beginning of LI), with increased UPDRS III scores and medium effect (, ; ).

Balance and gait analyses with DGI found significance with Friedman ANOVA (, ). However, there were no differences in the comparisons; the median indicated a ceiling effect at the end of FI.

Postural control analysis with QS (TSD, TMV, APA, MLA, and AREA, in both conditions: EO_FT and EC_FT) identified no differences (Table 4) after AI and LI ().

One out of the 18 participants was unable to complete all QS conditions in AS1, whereas all of them were completed in AS2-AS4, indicating this participant’s postural control improvement. Three people missed the reassessments, which is why the number of participants varied in the reassessments (Figure 2).

4. Discussion

This study verified that the proposed MIP in AE and LE improved static and dynamic balance, motor aspects, and ADL in people with PD. Postural control differences were verified with the functional scales (though not with QS variables), which justifies the use of complementary measure methods to assess such patients [29].

Although the sample comprised H&Y stages 1 to 4, most participants were in stages 2 and 4. Even in earlier stages, participants had balance and postural control changes, which justify early interventions to delay the deleterious effects of disease progression [19]. The differential of this study was the inclusion of people in H&Y stage 4 [43], confirming the positive effects of MIP even in people in more advanced PD stages, who are consequently more impaired.

BBS identified positive effects of MIP on the static balance after AI, with no significant losses in the follow-up. Masiero et al. [22] also found positive effects on balance with BBS after AI in people with PD H&Y stage , in the “off” phase of the medication, after 4 weeks of exercises, twice a week. In our findings, the gains perceived with BBS were also verified in the FI, with a ceiling effect for some patients. This may have limited the verification of LE effects, as there were no losses in the follow-up, and they began LI with the effects transferred from AI.

Positive effects on balance verified with BBS were also reported by Volpe et al. [26]. They compared 34 people with PD, who received AE and LE intervention—with greater improvements in the AE. However, unlike those authors (who found an improved center of mass sway with eyes closed as well), no significant changes were identified in the postural control QS measures in the present study. Cugusi et al. [44], in a systematic review with meta-analysis, found more promising effects in AI than LI in BBS balance analysis—which, such as in the present study, were maintained in follow-up assessments.

Significant differences were identified with Mini-BESTest median values both after LI and in FI, with a 4-point variation. The minimal detectable clinical change in this test for H&Y stages 1 to 3 is 3.4 to 4.0 points in the group analysis [45]. Hence, LI and FI had positive effects even including patients in H&Y stage 4. This is relevant because PD people in H&Y stage 4 may have difficulties in 50% or more of the activities measured with Mini-BESTest [45] and therefore need opportunities to join exercise programs. The Mini-BESTest assesses balance domains with anticipatory adjustment, reactive postural control, sensory orientation, and dynamic gait [46]. MIP addressed these dimensions in both AI and LI.

The results of this study seemingly indicate that the AI phase of MIP influences more static balance components (measured with BBS), while LI influences more dynamic balance components (measured with Mini-BESTest). This may be explained by the evolution of components of postural control development—i.e., that static balance is firstly necessary so dynamic balance can be then improved [47]. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that BBS reached a ceiling effect after AI while the Mini-BESTest result continued progressing until the end of the exercise program.

This study began the intervention in AE because of its hydrostatic and hydrodynamic properties and the safety they provide regarding the risk of falls, especially in more severe H&Y stages. The immersed body is knowingly unstable, requiring continuous postural adjustments, which further explain the balance improvement results after AI [48], with consequences in LI [25]. In AI, the center of body mass changes, requiring stabilization between gravity, density, and buoyancy forces, which in turn may cause rotational movements until finding balance, called metacentric effects [49]. Adequate postural balance must be maintained to stabilize the forces that act upon the immersed body. Therefore, aquatic activities can be a good alternative to begin postural control, with the additional benefit of providing safety to patients and therapists. Hence, the challenging activities and external disturbances make the development and training of motor skills easier [25].

The positive consequences on motor aspects and ADL obtained with UPDRS II and III demonstrate that the interventions were relevant to transferring the effects achieved in AE to ADL, through LI, thus justifying the complementary different therapy modalities. After LI, people with PD performed better in UPDRS II and III, and FI had positive effects on UPDRS III.

In UPDRS II, Schrag et al. [50] suggest a 2-point clinical difference for H&Y stages 1 and 2 and a 3-point difference for H&Y stage 3. In the present study, as the data were nonparametric, comparisons were made with the medians, significantly differing 5 points after LI, even including people with more severe PD, in H&Y stage 4. Thus, important clinical effects for the ADL of participants with PD were demonstrated and confirmed with the medium effect size obtained.

As for UPDRS III, the clinical difference is 5 points for people in H&Y stages 1 to 3 [50]. In this study, the medians significantly differed 3 points after AI and 4 points after LI and in the combination of the two environments. The effect size was greater after LI and FI than after AI alone. These findings may be related to the time of intervention; in this case, the cumulative effect of interventions and time would be necessary to verify the results in motor aspects. They may also be related to the similarity with the environment where UPDRS tasks are assessed.

Since people with more severe PD (H&Y stage 4) were included in the study, these values and the nonnormal distribution may have influenced the identification of results. Therefore, studies with a larger and more representative sample for each PD stage should be conducted, even though they pose a challenge to clinical research.

The MIP had specific exercises for lower limb balance and strength in both environments. As the intensity progressed, patients were always encouraged to maintain the quality of movement, full attention, and cognition. From a clinical standpoint, Horak [51] states that postural control efficiency depends on six main points: biomechanical restrictions, movement strategies, sensory strategies, space orientation, dynamic control, and cognitive processes. Thus, reinforcing the complex interaction between multiple sensory-cognitive-motor processes [47, 52] and the need for a variety of progressive stimuli in different environments.

In DGI analysis, the final median of the MIP was 24—the maximum value with ceiling effect—which indicates the participants’ improvement, though making it difficult to find where the differences in statistical analyses were. Although DGI is included in the PD recommendation guidelines, other instruments, such as the Functional Gait Assessment (FGA), may be more sensitive to detecting postintervention changes [29].

The QS analysis in this study did not identify any difference in postural control after MIP. Despite the advancements, the complex physiopathology of postural instability in PD has not been fully clarified yet because of the difficulty distinguishing the disease process and the patients’ compensatory mechanisms, besides the lack of standardized measuring techniques [53]. QS analysis with a force platform is a quantitative alternative to obtain data on postural stability in PD. However, the results in this study did not follow the other instruments used. An explanation may be the sample size, which made it possible to find changes on scales with discrete values, but not in continuous variables such as the ones acquired in the force platform. Another possibility is that the QS analysis verified sway aspects without reflecting the functional characteristics, whose outcomes are measured with clinical scales that allow an application more related to everyday life experience.

The limitations of the study and suggestions for future research include having a control group, different intervention sequence combinations, and greater sample size to allow separate analysis by H&Y stages.

5. Conclusions

This research identified improved balance, ADL, and motor aspects in people with PD after an MIP was applied sequentially in AE and LE. The combination of aquatic- and land-based interventions seems to be complementary in the treatment of people with PD. It is understood that physical exercises, regardless of the environment where they are done, bring benefits to people with PD, breaking the cycle of limited mobility and improving their functioning and quality of life.

Data Availability

Research data cannot be shared due to ethical issues regarding their secrecy and nondisclosure according to the Research Ethics Committee of the Federal University of Paraná (UFPR), Brazil. Only the study results may be shared.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgments

This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior, Brazil (CAPES), finance code 001. Gratitude is extended to all participants who made this research possible.

References

F. Magrinelli, A. Picelli, P. Tocco et al., “Pathophysiology of motor dysfunction in Parkinson’s disease as the rationale for drug treatment and rehabilitation,” Parkinson’s Disease, vol. 2016, 18 pages, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Tan, M. Danoudis, J. McGinley, and M. E. Morris, “Relationships between motor aspects of gait impairments and activity limitations in people with Parkinson's disease: a systematic review,” Parkinsonism and Related Disorders, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 117–124, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. A. Bonjorni, M. Jamami, V. A. P. di Lorenzo, and B. V. Pessoa, “Influência da doença de Parkinson em capacidade física, função pulmonar e índice de massa magra corporal,” Fisioterapia em Movimento, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 727–736, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. B. Postuma, D. Berg, M. Stern et al., “MDS clinical diagnostic criteria for Parkinson's disease,” Movement Disorders, vol. 30, no. 12, pp. 1591–1601, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. E. Lang and A. J. Espay, “Disease modification in Parkinson's disease: current approaches, challenges, and future considerations,” Movement Disorders, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 660–677, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Berardelli, J. C. Rothwell, P. D. Thompson, and M. Hallett, “Pathophysiology of bradykinesia in Parkinson’s disease,” Brain, vol. 124, no. 11, pp. 2131–2146, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Nallegowda, U. Singh, G. Handa et al., “Role of sensory input and muscle strength in maintenance of balance, gait, and posture in Parkinson’s disease: a pilot study,” American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 83, no. 12, pp. 898–908, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Frazzitta, D. Ferrazzoli, R. Maestri et al., “Differences in muscle strength in Parkinsonian patients affected on the right and left side,” PLoS One, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 1–8, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Ellis and L. Rochester, “Mobilizing Parkinson’s disease: the future of exercise,” Journal of Parkinson’s Disease, vol. 8, no. s1, pp. S95–S100, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Mirelman, P. Bonato, R. Camicioli et al., “Gait impairments in Parkinson's disease,” The Lancet Neurology, vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 697–708, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. B. Foreman, C. Wisted, O. Addison, R. L. Marcus, P. C. LaStayo, and L. E. Dibble, “Improved dynamic postural task performance without improvements in postural responses: the blessing and the curse of dopamine replacement,” Parkinson’s Disease, vol. 2012, 8 pages, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. B. de Freitas and C. Torriani-Pasin, “Controle postural na doença de Parkinson implicações para a prática clínica em fisioterapia neurofuncional,” in PROFISIO Programa de Atualização em Fisioterapia Neurofuncional, pp. 9–48, Artmed Panamericana, Porto Alegre, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
G. M. Gatinho Bonuzzi, T. B. Freitas, U. C. Corrêa, A. M. Freudenheim, J. E. Pompeu, and C. Torriani-Pasin, “Learning of a postural control task by elderly post-stroke patients,” Motricidade, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 141–148, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Kamieniarz, J. Michalska, A. Brachman, M. Pawłowski, K. Słomka, and G. Juras, “A posturographic procedure assessing balance disorders in Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review,” Clinical Interventions in Aging, vol. Volume 13, pp. 2301–2316, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. E. Pompeu, F. A. dos Santos Mendes, K. G. da Silva et al., “Effect of Nintendo Wii™-based motor and cognitive training on activities of daily living in patients with Parkinson's disease: a randomised clinical trial,” Physiotherapy, vol. 98, no. 3, pp. 196–204, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. L. Radder, I. H. Sturkenboom, M. van Nimwegen, S. H. Keus, B. R. Bloem, and N. M. de Vries, “Physical therapy and occupational therapy in Parkinson's disease,” International Journal of Neuroscience., vol. 127, no. 10, pp. 930–943, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. E. Garber, B. Blissmer, M. R. Deschenes et al., “Quantity and quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory, musculoskeletal, and neuromotor fitness in apparently healthy adults,” Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, vol. 43, no. 7, pp. 1334–1359, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. L. Piercy, R. P. Troiano, R. M. Ballard et al., “The physical activity guidelines for Americans,” JAMA, vol. 320, no. 19, pp. 2020–2028, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. K. Mak, I. S. Wong-Yu, X. Shen, and C. L. Chung, “Long-term effects of exercise and physical therapy in people with Parkinson disease,” Nature Reviews Neurology, vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 689–703, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. A. Osborne, R. Botkin, C. Colon-Semenza et al., “Physical therapist management of Parkinson disease: a clinical practice guideline from the American Physical Therapy Association,” Physical Therapy, vol. 102, no. 4, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Z. da Silva and V. L. Israel, “Effects of dual-task aquatic exercises on functional mobility, balance and gait of individuals with Parkinson’s disease: a randomized clinical trial with a 3-month follow-up,” Complementary Therapies in Medicine, vol. 42, pp. 119–124, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Masiero, I. Maghini, M. E. Mantovani et al., “Is the aquatic thermal environment a suitable place for providing rehabilitative treatment for person with Parkinson’s disease? A retrospective study,” International Journal of Biometeorology, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 13–18, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. E. Becker, “Aquatic therapy in contemporary neurorehabilitation: an update,” PM&R., vol. 12, no. 12, pp. 1251–1259, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Pinto, A. P. Salazar, R. R. Marchese, C. Stein, and A. S. Pagnussat, “The effects of hydrotherapy on balance, functional mobility, motor status, and quality of life in patients with Parkinson disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” PM & R : The Journal of Injury, Function, and Rehabilitation, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 278–291, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. D. Iucksch, L. B. de Araujo, K. R. M. Novakoski et al., “Decoding the aquatic motor behavior: description and reflection on the functional movement,” Acta Scientiarum Health Sciences, vol. 42, article e47129, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Volpe, M. G. Giantin, R. Maestri, and G. Frazzitta, “Comparing the effects of hydrotherapy and land-based therapy on balance in patients with Parkinson’s disease: a randomized controlled pilot study,” Clinical Rehabilitation, vol. 28, no. 12, pp. 1210–1217, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Bouça-Machado, A. Rosário, D. Caldeira et al., “Physical activity, exercise, and physiotherapy in Parkinson's disease: defining the concepts,” Movement Disorders Clinical Practice, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 7–15, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. M. Carroll, M. E. Morris, W. T. O’Connor, and A. M. Clifford, “Is aquatic therapy optimally prescribed for Parkinson’s disease? a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Journal of Parkinson’s Disease, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 59–76, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. T. Capato, J. M. Domingos, and L. R. de Almeida, Versão em Portugues da Diretriz Parkinson, Omnifarma, São Paulo, 1st edition, 2015.
OMS Organização Mundial da Saúde, Classificação internacional de funcionalidade, incapacidade e saúde, EDUSP, São Paulo, 2015.
K. O. Berg, B. E. Maki, J. I. Williams, P. J. Holliday, and S. L. Wood-Dauphinee, “Clinical and laboratory measures of postural balance in an elderly population,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 73, no. 11, pp. 1073–1080, 1992.
View at: Google Scholar
A. A. Qutubuddin, P. O. Pegg, D. X. Cifu, R. Brown, S. McNamee, and W. Carne, “Validating the Berg balance scale for patients with Parkinson's disease: a key to rehabilitation evaluation,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 86, no. 4, pp. 789–792, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Schlenstedt, S. Brombacher, G. Hartwigsen, B. Weisser, B. Möller, and G. Deuschl, “Comparison of the Fullerton advanced balance scale, Mini-BESTest, and Berg balance scale to predict falls in Parkinson disease,” Physical Therapy, vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 494–501, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. C. Maia, F. Rodrigues-de-Paula, L. C. Magalhaes, and R. L. L. Teixeira, “Cross-cultural adaptation and analysis of the psychometric properties of the balance evaluation systems test and MiniBESTest in the elderly and individuals with Parkinson’s disease: application of the Rasch model,” Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 195–217, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. L. Leddy, B. E. Crowner, and G. M. Earhart, “Utility of the Mini-BESTest, BESTest, and BESTest sections for balance assessments in individuals with Parkinson disease,” Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 90–97, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. G. Goetz, B. C. Tilley, S. R. Shaftman et al., “Movement Disorder Society-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS): scale presentation and clinimetric testing results,” Movement Disorders, vol. 23, no. 15, pp. 2129–2170, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. M. de Castro, M. R. Perracini, and F. F. Ganança, “Versão Brasileira do dynamic gait index,” Revista Brasileira de Oto-Rino-Laringologia, vol. 72, no. 6, pp. 817–825, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Doná, C. C. Aquino, J. M. Gazzola et al., “Changes in postural control in patients with Parkinson's disease: a posturographic study,” Physiotherapy, vol. 102, no. 3, pp. 272–279, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Lazarotto, G. Z. G. Bobbo, J. Siega et al., “Static and dynamic postural control: comparison between community old adults and people with Parkinson's disease,” Physiotherapy Research International, vol. 25, no. 3, article e1844, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Siega, D. D. Iucksch, and V. L. Israel, “Multicomponent aquatic training (MAT) program for people with Parkinson’s disease: a protocol for a controlled study,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 19, no. 3, p. 1727, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. D. Iucksch, “Análise dos efeitos de um programa de exercícios físicos multicomponentes em ambiente aquático e terrestre na funcionalidade, na função muscular, no controle postural e na marcha de pessoas com doença de Parkinson,” Federal University of Paraná, 2022, https://www.prppg.ufpr.br/siga/visitante/trabalhoConclusaoWS?idpessoal=71862&idprograma=40001016047P0&anobase=2022&idtc=1496.
View at: Google Scholar
J. S. Skinner, R. Hutsler, V. Bergsteinová, and E. R. Buskirk, “The validity and reliability of a rating scale of perceived exertion,” Medicine and Science in Sports, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 94–96, 1973.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Siega, D. D. Iucksch, A. Z. da Silva, T. G. G. Zotz, and V. L. Israel, “Parkinson's disease and multicomponent aquatic exercise: effects on motor aspects, functional mobility, muscle function and aquatic motor skills,” Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies, vol. 27, pp. 314–321, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Cugusi, A. Manca, M. Bergamin et al., “Aquatic exercise improves motor impairments in people with Parkinson's disease, with similar or greater benefits than land-based exercise: a systematic review,” Journal of Physiotherapy, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 65–74, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Godi, I. Arcolin, M. Giardini, S. Corna, and M. Schieppati, “Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference of the Mini-BESTest in patients with Parkinson's disease,” Gait and Posture, vol. 80, pp. 14–19, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Christinelli, G. Ferreira, D. D. Iucksch et al., “Aquatic physical therapy in the balance and gait of people with Parkinson’s disease: a pilot study,” Revista Neurociências, vol. 29, pp. 1–16, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Shumway-Cook and M. H. Woolacott, Controle Motor: Teoria e Aplicações, Manole, Barueri-SP, 3th edition, 2010.
L. M. M. de Oliveira, D. M. Braga, L. C. Oliveira, T. L. Alves, F. N. Cyrillo, and M. S. Kanashiro, “Interference of aquatic therapy in children with cerebral palsy balance,” Revista Pesquisa em Fisioterapia, vol. 5, no. 2, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Torres-Ronda and X. Schelling i del Alcázar, “The properties of water and their applications for training,” Journal of Human Kinetics, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 237–248, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Schrag, C. Sampaio, N. Counsell, and W. Poewe, “Minimal clinically important change on the unified Parkinson's disease rating scale,” Movement Disorders, vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 1200–1207, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. B. Horak, “Postural orientation and equilibrium: what do we need to know about neural control of balance to prevent falls?” Age and Ageing, vol. 35, suppl_2, pp. ii7–i11, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Mochizuki and A. C. Amadio, “As funções do controle postural durante a postura ereta,” Revista Fisioterapia, vol. 10, pp. 7–15, 2003.
View at: Google Scholar
S. D. Kim, N. E. Allen, C. G. Canning, and V. S. C. Fung, “Postural instability in patients with Parkinson’s disease,” CNS Drugs, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 97–112, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2023 Dielise Debona Iucksch et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

1227

Downloads

846

Citations