Journals / Archives of health science and research (Online) / 2022 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 1

Comparison of Balance and Proprioception in Individuals with Myopia Compared to Healthy Peers

Pages
27–31
Publication Date
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

We think that the evaluation of the participants with the orthoses they use will provide more accurate results from the measurements in future studies evaluating balance and proprioception.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The visual system is one of the 3 most essential systems for maintaining balance.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: Fifteen subjects with myopic eye defects and 15 healthy peers were included in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:We think that the evaluation of the participants with the orthoses they use will provide more accurate results from the measurements in future studies evaluating balance and proprioception.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: The visual system is one of the 3 most essential systems for maintaining balance. However, the evaluation of refractive error such as myopia has always been neglected in balance studies. This paper aimed to examine the differences in balance and proprioception measurements between individuals with myopia and their healthy peers. Materials and Methods: Fifteen subjects with myopic eye defects and 15 healthy peers were included in the study. Balance evaluations consisted of the tandem walk test (TWT), the limits of stability test (LOS), and the modified clinical test of sensory interaction and balance (mCTSIB). These evaluations were performed with a computer-aided NeuroCom Balance Master device. Additionally, proprioception was measured with the Biodex System 3 isokinetic dynamometer. Results: Individuals with myopic defects had higher step widths (P = .001), and end-sway (P = .007) than their healthy peers. The reaction time, maximum excursion, and directional control values of the myopia group were lower than those of the healthy peer group, but there was no difference between the results of the LOS and the m-CTSIB tests (P > .05 for all parameters). Moreover, the 60° proprioception evaluation deviation was higher in the myopia group for both dominant and non-dominant extremities. However, this deviation was not statistically significant (P > .05). Conclusion: This study showed some differences in the measured values for balance in myopic individuals compared to healthy peers. We think that the evaluation of the participants with the orthoses they use will provide more accurate results from the measurements in future studies evaluating balance and proprioception.

🔖

Cite This Article

OĞUZ, S., SARI, Z., ŞENOCAK, E. (2022). Comparison of Balance and Proprioception in Individuals with Myopia Compared to Healthy Peers. Archives of health science and research (Online), Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 1, 27–31. https://ajindex.com/articles/447874

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Leissner J, Coenen M, Froehlich S, Loyola D, Cieza A. What explains health in persons with visual impairment? Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014
  2. 12(1):65. [CrossRef] 2. Spera R, Belviso I, Sirico F, et al. Jump and balance test in judo athletes with or without visual impairments. J Hum Sport Exerc. 2019
  3. 14(Proc4):S937- S947. [CrossRef] 3. Pasma JH, Engelhart D, Schouten AC, van der Kooij H, Maier AB, Mesk- ers CGM. Impaired standing balance: the clinical need for closing the loop. Neuroscience. 2014
  4. [CrossRef] 4. Nodehi Moghadam A, Goudarzian M, Azadi F, et al. Falls and postural control in older adults with cataracts. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2015
  5. 29(1):311. 5. Jeon BJ, Cha TH. The effects of balance of low vision patients on activities of daily living. J Phys Ther Sci. 2013
  6. 25(6):693-696. [CrossRef] 6. Black A, Wood J. Vision and falls. Clin Exp Optom. 2005
  7. 88(4):212-222. [CrossRef] 7. Lord SR. Visual risk factors for falls in older people. Age Ageing. 2006
  8. 35(2):508-515. [CrossRef] 8. Subasi SS, Gelecek N, Aksakoglu G. Effects of different warm-up periods on knee proprioception and balance in healthy young individuals. J Sport Rehabil. 2008
  9. 17(2):186-205. [CrossRef] 9. Alghadir AH, Alotaibi AZ, Iqbal ZA. Postural stability in people with visual impairment. Brain Behav. 2019
  10. 9(11):e01436. [CrossRef] 10. Salive ME, Guralnik J, Glynn RJ, Christen W, Wallace RB, Ostfeld AM. Asso- ciation of visual impairment with mobility and physical function. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1994
  11. 42(3):287-292. [CrossRef] 11. Zetterlund C, Lundqvist LO, Richter HO. The relationship between low vision and musculoskeletal complaints: a case control study between age- related macular degeneration patients and age-matched controls with normal vision. J Optom. 2009
  12. 2(3):127-133. [CrossRef] 12. Holden BA, Fricke TR, Wilson DA, et al. Global prevalence of myopia and high myopia and temporal trends from 2000 through 2050. Ophthalmol- ogy. 2016
  13. 123(5):1036-1042. [CrossRef] 13. Irmak Karaca SGY. Miyopi ve glokom. Glo-Kat. 2018
  14. Kim SY, Moon BY, Cho HG. Body balance under ametropic conditions induced by spherical lenses in an upright position. J Phys Ther Sci. 2015
  15. 27(3):615-618. [CrossRef] 15. Park H, Jung T. Limits of stability, tandem walk, and adaptation test in individuals with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: a case-control compari- son with knee OA and healthy knee controls. Int J Hum Mov Sport Sci. 2018
  16. 6(2):23-29. [CrossRef] 16. Kılıç RT, Börü A, Tunay VB, Akso