Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume 89, Issue 4 , Pages 609-617 , April 2008

Improvement in Aerobic Fitness During Rehabilitation After Hip Fracture

  • Marissa E. Mendelsohn, PhD

      Affiliations

    • School of Kinesiology, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada
    • ,
  • Tom J. Overend, PhD, PT

      Affiliations

    • School of Physical Therapy, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada
    • Lawson Health Research Institute, St. Joseph’s Health Care, London, ON, Canada.
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests to Tom J. Overend, PhD, PT, School of Physical Therapy, University of Western Ontario, Rm 1445, Elborn College, 1201 Western Rd, London, ON N6G 1H1, Canada
    • ,
  • Denise M. Connelly, PhD, PT

      Affiliations

    • School of Physical Therapy, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada
    • Lawson Health Research Institute, St. Joseph’s Health Care, London, ON, Canada.
    • ,
  • Robert J. Petrella, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • School of Kinesiology, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada
    • Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada
    • Lawson Health Research Institute, St. Joseph’s Health Care, London, ON, Canada.

  • Image Result

    The CONSORT flow diagram.

    The CONSORT flow diagram.

  • Image Result

    Admission and discharge scores for Vo2peak for training and control groups. *The training group significantly improved in aerobic capacity from admission to discharge and †compared with the control gr

    Admission and discharge scores for Vo2peak for training and control groups. *The training group significantly improved in aerobic capacity from admission to discharge and †compared with the control group (P<.01). Error bars show the SDs.

  • Image Result
    Performances on the TUG (in seconds), BBS (score out of 56), and FIM instrument (score out of 126) for the training and control groups. *Both groups significantly improved in all 3 outcome measures at

    Performances on the TUG (in seconds), BBS (score out of 56), and FIM instrument (score out of 126) for the training and control groups. *Both groups significantly improved in all 3 outcome measures at the end of the rehabilitation program (P<.05). †Improvements in the training group in the TUG and BBS were greater than in the control group (P<.05). Error bars show the SDs.

  • Image Result
    2MWT and 10MWT performances for the training and control groups. *Both groups significantly improved in both mobility measures at the end of the rehabilitation program (P<.05). †Improvements in the tr

    2MWT and 10MWT performances for the training and control groups. *Both groups significantly improved in both mobility measures at the end of the rehabilitation program (P<.05). †Improvements in the training group were significantly greater compared with the control group (P<.05). Error bars show the SDs.

 No commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article has or will confer a benefit upon the authors or upon any organization with which the authors are associated.

PII: S0003-9993(07)01842-4

doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.09.036

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume 89, Issue 4 , Pages 609-617 , April 2008

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution