Pilates as an Adjuvant Therapy in Parkinson Disease.
- Conditions
- Parkinson Disease
- Interventions
- Other: Conventional ExerciseOther: Pilates
- Registration Number
- NCT03294031
- Lead Sponsor
- University of Vigo
- Brief Summary
Although Pilates has been proposed as a useful rehabilitation strategy in PD, research on its feasibility and potential effects on the motor symptoms and balance with this population is scarce. Some works have included Pilates as part of combined exercise session interventions, but information concerning their specific effects was not provided. Under these circumstances, this study aims at identifying the effects of adding Pilates as part of a conventional exercise rehabilitation program on the motor symptoms and static balance of PD persons. Participants (n=15) were assigned to a Pilates (PG) or to a conventional exercise group (CG) and performed one land-based and one water-based exercise session per week for 14 weeks. The MDS-UPDRS and a stabilometer were used to assess the impact of the intervention on the participant´s motor symptoms and static balance.
- Detailed Description
Not available
Recruitment & Eligibility
- Status
- COMPLETED
- Sex
- All
- Target Recruitment
- 15
- Stages 1 through 3 on the Hoehn and Yahr Staging Scale;
- Stable reaction to anti-Parkinson medication;
- Not having taken part in any physical exercise program during the month prior to the study.
- People with PD who were not able to ambulate independently or presented any comorbidities other than PD or any acute illness that would make training inappropriate.
Study & Design
- Study Type
- INTERVENTIONAL
- Study Design
- SEQUENTIAL
- Arm && Interventions
Group Intervention Description Conventional Exercise Conventional Exercise The conventional exercise programme covered a 12-week period, two weekly sessions. The programme aimed at improving aerobic capacity, muscular resistance, balance and flexibility. The program combined land-based and water-based exercise sessions. Pilates Pilates The Pilates program covered a 12-week period, two weekly sessions. In one session, exercises were performed on a mat (Mat Pilates), and in the second session in standing and sitting position. The programme included warm-up exercises, the main part of the session and cooling activities.
- Primary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method Motor impairment. The participants were assessed one week before starting the program (week #0). The Spanish adapted version of the Movement Disorder Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) was administered to assess the impact of the intervention on the motor impairment and disability related to PD. The MDS-UPDRS total score ranges from zero to 200, with higher scores indicating a greater impact of PD symptoms.
- Secondary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method Anthropometric Measurements. The participants were assessed one week before starting the program (week #0). The height (cm) and weight (kg) of the participants were measured without shoes and in light clothing. The body mass index (BMI) was calculated using the following formula: weight / height2 (kg/m2).
Change from baseline Anthropometric Measurements at week 15. The participants were assessed one week after the programme was completed (week #15). The height (cm) and weight (kg) of the participants were measured without shoes and in light clothing. The body mass index (BMI) was calculated using the following formula: weight / height2 (kg/m2).
Change from week 15 Anthropometric Measurements at week 18 follow-up. Follow-up assessment was performed four weeks after training ended (week #18). The height (cm) and weight (kg) of the participants were measured without shoes and in light clothing. The body mass index (BMI) was calculated using the following formula: weight / height2 (kg/m2).
Static Balance at baseline. The participants were assessed one week before starting the program (week #0). The static balance was evaluated using the TecnoBody Prokin 3 platform. The assessment protocol was developed in a sitting and standing position, with open (OE) and closed (CE) eyes. The participants had three 30-second attempts to perform the position with open and closed eyes and a 60-second interval of active rest between them. The static balance parameters assessed were the centre of pressure of the body in the frontal plane, the centre of pressure of the body in the sagittal plane, the amplitude movement of the centre of pressure in the sagittal plane, the amplitude movement of the centre of pressure in the frontal plane, the average speed of oscillation movement of the centre of pressure in the sagittal plane, the average speed of oscillation movement of the centre of pressure in the frontal plane, the sum of distances of the amount of movement of the centre of pressure, and the displacement area of the centre of pressure.
Change from baseline Static Balance at 15 weeks. The participants were assessed one week after the programme was completed (week #15). The static balance was evaluated using the TecnoBody Prokin 3 platform. The assessment protocol was developed in a sitting and standing position, with open (OE) and closed (CE) eyes. The participants had three 30-second attempts to perform the position with open and closed eyes and a 60-second interval of active rest between them. The static balance parameters assessed were the centre of pressure of the body in the frontal plane, the centre of pressure of the body in the sagittal plane, the amplitude movement of the centre of pressure in the sagittal plane, the amplitude movement of the centre of pressure in the frontal plane, the average speed of oscillation movement of the centre of pressure in the sagittal plane, the average speed of oscillation movement of the centre of pressure in the frontal plane, the sum of distances of the amount of movement of the centre of pressure, and the displacement area of the centre of pressure.
Change from week 15 Static Balance at week 18 follow-up. Follow-up assessment was performed four weeks after training ended (week #18). The static balance was evaluated using the TecnoBody Prokin 3 platform. The assessment protocol was developed in a sitting and standing position, with open (OE) and closed (CE) eyes. The participants had three 30-second attempts to perform the position with open and closed eyes and a 60-second interval of active rest between them. The static balance parameters assessed were the centre of pressure of the body in the frontal plane, the centre of pressure of the body in the sagittal plane, the amplitude movement of the centre of pressure in the sagittal plane, the amplitude movement of the centre of pressure in the frontal plane, the average speed of oscillation movement of the centre of pressure in the sagittal plane, the average speed of oscillation movement of the centre of pressure in the frontal plane, the sum of distances of the amount of movement of the centre of pressure, and the displacement area of the centre of pressure.
Change from baseline Motor Impairment at 15 weeks. The participants were assessed one week after the programme was completed (week #15). The Spanish adapted version of the Movement Disorder Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) was administered to assess the impact of the intervention on the motor impairment and disability related to PD. The MDS-UPDRS total score ranges from zero to 200, with higher scores indicating a greater impact of PD symptoms.
Change from week 15 Motor Impairment at week 18 follow-up. Follow-up assessment was performed four weeks after training ended (week #18). The Spanish adapted version of the Movement Disorder Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) was administered to assess the impact of the intervention on the motor impairment and disability related to PD. The MDS-UPDRS total score ranges from zero to 200, with higher scores indicating a greater impact of PD symptoms.