Advanced

Timed up & go test score in patients with hip fracture is related to the type of walking aid.

Tange Kristensen, Morten LU ; Bandholm, Thomas; Holm, Bente; Ekdahl, Charlotte LU and Kehlet, Henrik (2009) In Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 90(10). p.1760-1765
Abstract
Kristensen MT, Bandholm T, Holm B, Ekdahl C, Kehlet H. Timed Up & Go test score in patients with hip fracture is related to the type of walking aid. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between Timed Up & Go (TUG) test scores and type of walking aid used during the test, and to determine the feasibility of using the rollator as a standardized walking aid during the TUG in patients with hip fracture who were allowed full weight-bearing (FWB). DESIGN: Prospective methodological study. SETTING: An acute orthopedic hip fracture unit at a university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (N=126; 90 women, 36 men) with hip fracture with a mean age +/- SD of 74.8+/-12.7 years performed the TUG the day before discharge from the orthopedic... (More)
Kristensen MT, Bandholm T, Holm B, Ekdahl C, Kehlet H. Timed Up & Go test score in patients with hip fracture is related to the type of walking aid. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between Timed Up & Go (TUG) test scores and type of walking aid used during the test, and to determine the feasibility of using the rollator as a standardized walking aid during the TUG in patients with hip fracture who were allowed full weight-bearing (FWB). DESIGN: Prospective methodological study. SETTING: An acute orthopedic hip fracture unit at a university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (N=126; 90 women, 36 men) with hip fracture with a mean age +/- SD of 74.8+/-12.7 years performed the TUG the day before discharge from the orthopedic ward. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The TUG was performed with the walking aid the patient was to be discharged with: a walker (n=88) or elbow crutches (n=38). In addition, all patients also performed the TUG using a rollator. RESULTS: Patients who performed the TUG with a walker were on average 13.6 (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.2-16.1) seconds faster using a rollator compared with the walker (P<.001). Correspondingly, patients who performed the TUG with crutches were on average 3.5 (95% CI, 1.5-5.4) seconds faster using a rollator compared with elbow crutches (P=.001). In both patient groups, the between walking-aid scores were strongly correlated (r>.833, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: TUG scores are significantly related to the type of walking aid used during the test in patients with hip fracture who are allowed FWB when discharged from the hospital, but all patients were able to perform the TUG using the rollator as a standardized walking aid. Our findings indicate the importance of using a standardized walking aid when evaluating changes or comparing TUG scores in patients with hip fracture. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
Hip Fractures: physiopathology, Hip Fractures: rehabilitation
in
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
volume
90
issue
10
pages
1760 - 1765
publisher
Elsevier
external identifiers
  • wos:000270879400018
  • pmid:19801068
  • scopus:70350511890
ISSN
0003-9993
DOI
10.1016/j.apmr.2009.05.013
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
4964f22d-a37c-4398-906d-12ecb88bee23 (old id 1500711)
alternative location
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19801068?dopt=Abstract
date added to LUP
2009-11-04 10:07:07
date last changed
2017-07-23 04:55:09
@article{4964f22d-a37c-4398-906d-12ecb88bee23,
  abstract     = {Kristensen MT, Bandholm T, Holm B, Ekdahl C, Kehlet H. Timed Up &amp; Go test score in patients with hip fracture is related to the type of walking aid. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between Timed Up &amp; Go (TUG) test scores and type of walking aid used during the test, and to determine the feasibility of using the rollator as a standardized walking aid during the TUG in patients with hip fracture who were allowed full weight-bearing (FWB). DESIGN: Prospective methodological study. SETTING: An acute orthopedic hip fracture unit at a university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (N=126; 90 women, 36 men) with hip fracture with a mean age +/- SD of 74.8+/-12.7 years performed the TUG the day before discharge from the orthopedic ward. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The TUG was performed with the walking aid the patient was to be discharged with: a walker (n=88) or elbow crutches (n=38). In addition, all patients also performed the TUG using a rollator. RESULTS: Patients who performed the TUG with a walker were on average 13.6 (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.2-16.1) seconds faster using a rollator compared with the walker (P&lt;.001). Correspondingly, patients who performed the TUG with crutches were on average 3.5 (95% CI, 1.5-5.4) seconds faster using a rollator compared with elbow crutches (P=.001). In both patient groups, the between walking-aid scores were strongly correlated (r&gt;.833, P&lt;.001). CONCLUSIONS: TUG scores are significantly related to the type of walking aid used during the test in patients with hip fracture who are allowed FWB when discharged from the hospital, but all patients were able to perform the TUG using the rollator as a standardized walking aid. Our findings indicate the importance of using a standardized walking aid when evaluating changes or comparing TUG scores in patients with hip fracture.},
  author       = {Tange Kristensen, Morten and Bandholm, Thomas and Holm, Bente and Ekdahl, Charlotte and Kehlet, Henrik},
  issn         = {0003-9993},
  keyword      = {Hip Fractures: physiopathology,Hip Fractures: rehabilitation},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {10},
  pages        = {1760--1765},
  publisher    = {Elsevier},
  series       = {Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation},
  title        = {Timed up & go test score in patients with hip fracture is related to the type of walking aid.},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2009.05.013},
  volume       = {90},
  year         = {2009},
}