简易机体功能评估和计时起走测试评估老年人肌肉功能和肌力及肌量的价值研究

发布时间：2018-07-29 12:06

【摘要】：目的探讨躯体综合能力评估工具简易机体功能评估(SPPB)及计时起走测试(TUG)评估老年人肌肉功能、肌力及肌量的价值。方法选取2015年7—10月上海市虹口区欧阳路街道社区卫生服务中心老年女性患者106例,对其进行SPPB、TUG评估,SPPB包括串联站立测试、2.44 m行走测试、5次坐立测试;并通过日常步速评估肌肉功能、握力评估肌力、双能X线骨密度仪(DXA)测定并计算相对四肢骨骼肌指数(RASM)以评估肌量。分析SPPB、TUG与日常步速、握力、RASM的相关性。结果 106例老年女性日常步速平均值为(1.32±0.28)m/s,握力为(19.46±3.91)kg,RASM为(5.94±0.82)kg/m~2。SPPB、TUG的测试结果:串联站立测试时间(7.81±3.13)s,2.44 m行走测试时间(1.83±0.44)s,5次坐立测试时间(9.91±3.06)s,TUG时间(8.96±2.34)s。年龄、体质指数(BMI)、2.44 m行走测试时间、5次坐立测试时间、TUG时间与日常步速均呈负相关(P0.05),串联站立测试时间与日常步速无直线相关性(P0.05);年龄、2.44 m行走测试时间与握力呈负相关(P0.05),BMI、串联站立测试时间、5次坐立测试时间以及TUG时间与握力无直线相关性(P0.05);BMI、5次坐立测试时间、TUG时间与RASM呈正相关(P0.05),年龄、串联站立测试时间、2.44 m行走测试时间与RASM无直线相关性(P0.05)。校正年龄及BMI后进行相关性分析,2.44 m行走测试时间、5次坐立测试时间、TUG时间与日常步速均呈负相关(P0.05),串联站立测试时间与日常步速无直线相关性(P0.05);2.44 m行走测试时间与握力呈负相关(P0.05),串联站立测试时间、5次坐立测试时间以及TUG时间与握力无直线相关性(P0.05);串联站立测试时间、2.44 m行走测试时间、5次坐立测试时间、TUG时间与RASM无直线相关性(P0.05)。多元线性回归分析结果显示,2.44 m行走测试时间(β=-0.658,SE=0.024,t=-27.529,P0.001)、TUG时间(β=-0.015,SE=0.005,t=3.254,P=0.002)是影响日常步速的因素;2.44 m行走测试时间(β=-2.422,SE=0.835,t=-2.628,P=0.005)是影响握力的因素。结论 2.44 m行走测试、TUG可反映肌肉功能,2.44 m行走测试可反映肌力。SPPB、TUG对评估肌量无价值,但可作为评估肌肉功能、肌力的工具。
[Abstract]:Objective to evaluate the value of simple body function assessment (SPPB) and time walking test (TUG) to evaluate the muscle function, muscle strength and muscle mass of the elderly. Methods 106 cases of elderly women in the community health service center of Ouyang Road, Hongkou District, Shanghai, from 7 to October 2015, were selected for their SPPB, TUG assessment, and SPPB including Series standing test, 2.44 m walking test, 5 sitting test, and evaluation of muscle function by daily pace, grip strength assessment muscle strength, dual energy X-ray bone densitometer (DXA) measurement and calculation of skeletal muscle index (RASM) to evaluate muscle mass. Analysis of the correlation between SPPB, TUG and daily pace, grip strength and RASM. Results 106 cases of elderly women's daily pace leveling. The mean value was (1.32 + 0.28) m/s, the grip strength was (19.46 + 3.91) kg, RASM was (5.94 + 0.82) kg/m~2.SPPB, and the test results of TUG were: Series standing test time (7.81 + 3.13) s, 2.44 m walking test time (1.83 + 0.44) s, 5 sitting test time (9.91 +) s, TUG time s. age, body mass index (BMI), walking test time Test time, TUG time and daily pace were negatively correlated (P0.05), series standing test time had no linear correlation with daily pace (P0.05); age, 2.44 m walking test time was negatively correlated with grip strength (P0.05), BMI, series standing test time, 5 sitting test time, TUG time and grip strength without linear correlation (P0.05); BMI, 5 sitting stand. Test time, TUG time and RASM positive correlation (P0.05), age, series standing test time, 2.44 m walking test time without linear correlation with RASM (P0.05). Correction age and BMI after correlation analysis, 2.44 m walking test time, 5 sitting test time, TUG time and daily pace are negatively correlated (P0.05), in series standing test There was no linear correlation with daily pace (P0.05); 2.44 m walking test time was negatively correlated with grip strength (P0.05), series standing test time, 5 sitting test time, and no linear correlation between TUG time and grip strength (P0.05), series standing test time, 2.44 m walking test time, 5 sitting test time, TUG time related to RASM without linear correlation. P0.05. The results of multivariate linear regression analysis showed that 2.44 m walking test time (beta =-0.658, SE=0.024, t=-27.529, P0.001), TUG time (beta =-0.015, SE=0.005, t=3.254, P=0.002) were factors affecting the daily pace, and the factors affecting the grip strength were the 2.44 m walking test time. Conclusion 2.44 walking test, UG can reflect muscle function. 2.44 m walking test can reflect muscle strength.SPPB, TUG has no value in evaluating muscle mass, but it can be used as a tool to evaluate muscle function and muscle strength.
【作者单位】：上海交通大学附属第一人民医院内分泌代谢科;上海市虹口区欧阳路街道社区卫生服务中心;
【基金】：上海市自然科学基金资助项目(13ZR1433700)
【分类号】：R592

【相似文献】