HEREDİTER SENSORYAL MOTOR NÖROPATİ (HSMN) TANILI ÇOCUKLARDA FARKLI AYAK-AYAKBİLEĞİ ORTEZLERİNİN (AFO) ETKİLERİ

Öz

Çalışmamızın amacı, farklı yürüyüş problemleri gelişen çocuklar için sıklıkla önerilen AFO ların, HSMN li çocuklarda yürüyüş üzerine olan etkilerini araştırmaktır. Bu amaca yönelik olarak, tanıları konmuş ve yürüyüş problemi ile başvuran, yaş ortalamaları 9,11± 2,09 yıl olan 9 çocuk incelenmiştir. Çocukların tümüne rijit AFO ve eklemli AFO yapılmış, çocuklardan her durum için, yürüyüşün zaman – mesafe özellikleri ve merdiven çıkma ve inme süreleri kaydedilmiştir. Alınan sonuçlara göre ortezsiz, rijit AFO ve eklemli AFO arasında ölçülen yürüme parametreleri açısından fark bulunamamış (p>0,05), ancak merdiven çıkma ve inme aktivitelerini rijit AFO nun zorlaştırdığı tespit edilmiştir (p>0,05). Sonuç olarak, yürüme ortezleri, ayak çevresi kaslarındaki kuvvet dengesizliği olan hastalar için yürüme pateninin korunmasında ve sekonder deformite oluşumunun önlenmesi konusunda kullanılmakla birlikte, yürümede kısıtladığı hareketler nedeniyle ortaya çıkardığı zorluklar da göz ardı edilmemelidir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• nöromuskuler hastalık, düşük ayak, ayak-ayakbileği ortezleri

HEREDİTER SENSORYAL MOTOR NÖROPATİ (HSMN) TANILI ÇOCUKLARDA FARKLI AYAK-AYAKBİLEĞİ ORTEZLERİNİN (AFO) ETKİLERİ

Öz

In this study, it is aimed to investigate the effect of frequently suggested AFO’s on gait patterns of children with HSMN. Regarding this aim, nine children (mean age 9,11± 2,09 years) who are diagnosed as HSMN and have problems in walking were taken to the study. Rigid and hinged AFO were provided for all children and time- distance characteristics of gait, duration of climbing stairs with each AFO was recorded. Difference between without orthoses, with hinged and rigid orthoses was not statistically meaningful according to time-distance characteristics of gait (p<0,05), but it is found that there was a significant difficulty with rigid AFO in climbing stairs (p>0,05). As a result, it is thought that AFO’s should be recommended to maintain accurate gait pattern and to prevent secondary deformity development in patients with ankle –foot muscle imbalance. However, difficulties in gait pattern as result of limitation in joint movement because of AFO should be considered

Anahtar Kelimeler

• neuromuscular disease, drop-foot, foot and ankle orthoses

Kaynakça

1. Heil, B.”Lower-limb Biomechanics Related to Running Injuries” Physiotherapy, 79(6); 400-405, 1992.
2. Jahss, MH, Lusskin, R. “Peripheral Neurophaties Affecting the Foot: Traumatic, Ischemic and Compressive Disorders” Foot and Ankle, Jahss MH. (ed), Philadeplia, London, Toronto, WB. Saunders Company, 2099-2124
3. Murray, MP, Guten GN, Sepic SB, Gardner GM.”Function of the Triceps Surae During Gait. “J.Bone Joint Surg. 60-A, 473-476,1978.
4. Steindler, A. “The Mechanics of Foot And Ankle” , Kinesiology and Pathological Conditions, Charles, C. (ed.), Thomas Publisher, 5 edition., Springfield, Illinois, USA, 373-389, 1977.
5. Mueller, MJ., Diamond, JE., Delitto, A., Sinagore, DR. “ Insensitivity, Limited Joint Mobility and Platar Ulcers in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus. ” Phys. Ther., 69 (6), 435-462, 1989.
6. Nawoczenski, DA., Bikre, JA., Graham, SL., Koziatec, E.“ The Neuropatic Foot- A management scheeme: A Case Report. “ Phys. Ther., 69 (4), 287- ,1989.
7. Gucker, T. “ Bracing for Weakness”, Orthotics Etcetera, Licht, S.(ed),New Heaven, Connecticut, Elizabeth Licht Publisher, 356-364, 1966.
8. Fishman, S, Berger, N., Eldestein, JE., Springer, WP.“ Lower-Limb Orthoses”, Brunch, W.H (eds), Atlas of Orthotics, 2.edition, St. Louis, Mosby Company, ss. 199-237, 1985.

9. Rose, GK. “ Regional and Neurological Considerations”, Orthotics: Principles and Practice, Rose, G.K., (ed.), London, William Heinemann Medical Boks, 143-152, 1986.
10. Tachdjian, MO. “Diagnosis in Neuromusculoskeletal Disorders” , Pediatric Orthopedics, 1.edition, Philadelphia, W.B. Saunders Company, 2- , 1990.
11. Uygur, FS., Ayak Deformite ve Ortezleri, H.Ü.Fizik Tedavi ve Rehabilitasyon Yüksek Okulu Yayınları: 14, Volkan Matbaacılık, Ankara, 11- ,1992.
12. Burdett, RG., Borella-France, D., Blatchly, C., Potter, C.“ Gait Comparison of Subjects with Hemiplegia Walking Unbraced, wiht Ankle-Foot Orthosis; and with Air-Stirrup Brace.” Phys. Ther., 69 (9), 1197-1203, 1988.
13. Holden, MK., Gill, KM., Magliozzi, MR., Nathan, J., Piehl-Baker, L. “ Clinical Gait Assesment in the Neurologically Impaired” Phys. Ther., 64 (1), 40, 1984.
14. Shores, M.: “ Foot print Analysis in Gait Documentation” . Phys. Ther., 60 (9), 1163-1167,1980.
15. Stuberg, WA., Colerick, VL, Blanke, DJ., Bruce, W. “ Comparision of a Clinical Gait Analysis Method Using Videography and Temporal-Distance Measures with 16-mm Cinematography.” Phy. Ther., 68 (9),1221-1225, 1988.
16. Opara, CU, Levongie, PK., Nelson DL.: “ Effects of Selected Assistiue Devices on Normal Distance Gait Characteristic.” Phys. Ther., 65 (8), 1188- , 1985.
17. Sade, A., Şener, G., Angın, S., Livanelioğlu, A.: “Serebral Paralizide Yürümenin Zaman-Mesafe Karakteristikleri.” Fizyoterapi Rehabilitasyon, 6 (6):24-29, 1991.
18. Lehmann JF., London, SM., Lateur, BJ, Price, R.”Gait Abnormalities in Peroneal Nevre Paralysis and Their Corrections by Orthoses: A Biomechanical Study.” Arch. Phys. Med. Reh.,67,380-386, 1986.