Physiotherapy - Research Publications

Permanent URI for this collection

http://hdl.handle.net/11343/260

Filters

2021 - 2022 2
2
Reset filters

Settings
Statistics
Citations
Author: Williams, Gavin × Author: Bryant, Adam × Start date: 2021 ×

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Item
    No Preview Available
    Ballistic resistance training has a similar or better effect on mobility than non-ballistic exercise rehabilitation in people with a traumatic brain injury: a randomised trial
    Williams, G ; Hassett, L ; Clark, R ; Bryant, AL ; Morris, ME ; Olver, J ; Ada, L (AUSTRALIAN PHYSIOTHERAPY ASSOC, 2022-10)
    QUESTIONS: In people recovering from traumatic brain injury, is a 3-month ballistic resistance training program targeting three lower limb muscle groups more effective than non-ballistic exercise rehabilitation for improving mobility, strength and balance? Does improved mobility translate to better health-related quality of life? DESIGN: A prospective, multicentre, randomised trial with concealed allocation, intention-to-treat analysis and blinded measurement. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 144 people with a neurological movement disorder affecting mobility as a result of traumatic brain injury. INTERVENTION: For 3 months, the experimental group had three 60-minute sessions of non-ballistic exercise rehabilitation per week replaced by ballistic resistance training. The control group had non-ballistic exercise rehabilitation of equivalent time. The non-ballistic exercise rehabilitation consisted of balance exercises, lower limb stretching, conventional strengthening exercises, cardiovascular fitness training and gait training. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was mobility measured using the High-Level Mobility Assessment Tool (HiMAT). Secondary outcomes were walking speed, strength, balance and quality of life. They were measured at baseline (0 months), after completion of the 3-month intervention (3 months) and 3 months after cessation of intervention (6 months). RESULTS: After 3 months of ballistic resistance training, the experimental group scored 3 points (95% CI 0 to 6) higher on the 54-point HiMAT than the control group and remained 3 points (95% CI -1 to 6) higher at 6 months. Although there was a transient decrement in balance at 3 months in the experimental group, the interventions had similar effects on all secondary outcomes by 6 months. Participants with a baseline HiMAT < 27 gained greater benefit from ballistic training: 6 points (1 to 10) on the HiMAT. CONCLUSION: This randomised trial shows that ballistic resistance training has a similar or better effect on mobility than non-ballistic training in people with traumatic brain injury. It may be better targeted towards those with more severe mobility limitations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12611001098921.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Reliability of lumbar multifidus and iliocostalis lumborum thickness and echogenicity measurements using ultrasound imaging.
    Farragher, J ; Pranata, A ; El-Ansary, D ; Parry, S ; Williams, G ; Royse, C ; Royse, A ; O'Donohue, M ; Bryant, A (Wiley, 2021-08)
    PURPOSE: To establish the test-retest and inter-rater reliability of lumbar multifidus (LM) and iliocostalis lumborum (IL) muscle thickness and echogenicity as derived using ultrasound imaging. METHODS: Ultrasound images of the LM and IL were collected from 11 healthy participants on two occasions, 1 week apart, by two independent assessors. Measures of LM and IL thickness and echogenicity were subject to test-retest and inter-rater reliability, which was assessed by calculation of an F statistic, the interclass correlation coefficient (ICC), the standard error of measurement, 95% confidence intervals and Bland-Altman plots. This study was given approval by The University of Melbourne Behavioural and Social Sciences Human Ethics Sub-Committee (ref: 1749845). RESULTS: Assessors A and B showed good to excellent test-retest reliability for LM thickness (ICC3,3 A: 0.89 and B: 0.98), LM echogenicity (ICC3,3 A: 0.93 and B: 0.95) and IL echogenicity (ICC3,3 A: 0.87 and B: 0.83). Test-retest reliability for IL thickness was poor for Assessor A but excellent for Assessor B. Both assessors demonstrated excellent inter-rater reliability for LM thickness and echogenicity (ICC2,3: 0.79 and 0.94), but poor reliability for IL thickness and echogenicity (ICC2,3: 0.00 and 0.39). CONCLUSIONS: Inter-rater and test-retest reliability was excellent for LM but was less reliable for measures of the IL muscle.