Next Article in Journal
Intravenous r-tPA Dose Influence on Outcome after Middle Cerebral Artery Ischemic Stroke Treatment by Mechanical Thrombectomy
Previous Article in Journal
A Patient with Cryoglobulinemic Membranoproliferative GN (MPGN) Who Survived COVID-19 Disease: Case Presentation and Current Data of COVID-19 Infection in Dialysis and Transplanted Patients in Greece
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Medicina
Volume 56
Issue 7
10.3390/medicina56070356
medicina-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effectiveness of 6-Week Nordic Walking Training on Functional Performance, Gait Quality, and Quality of Life in Parkinson’s Disease

by
Justyna Szefler-Derela
1,
Michal Arkuszewski
2,
Andrzej Knapik
3,
Dagmara Wasiuk-Zowada
1,
Agnieszka Gorzkowska
4 and
Ewa Krzystanek
4,*
1
Department of Physiotherapy, School of Health Sciences in Katowice, Medical University of Silesia, 40-055 Katowice, Poland
2
Institute for Innovative Medicine, 15-082 Białystok, Poland
3
Department of Adapted Physical Activity and Sport, School of Health Sciences in Katowice, Medical University of Silesia, 40-055 Katowice, Poland
4
Department of Neurology, Faculty of Medical Sciences in Katowice, Medical University of Silesia, 40-055 Katowice, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Medicina 2020, 56(7), 356; https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina56070356
Submission received: 6 June 2020 / Revised: 7 July 2020 / Accepted: 13 July 2020 / Published: 17 July 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Neurology)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background and objectives: Motor rehabilitation improves physical mobility and quality of life in Parkinson’s disease (PD). As specialized rehabilitation is expensive and resource-consuming, there is a need for simpler, cost-effective methods. The purpose of the study was to determine whether Nordic Walking (NW) training may support the management of motor disability in PD. Materials and Methods: Forty patients (median age 64.0 years, range 50–75 years) with idiopathic PD, Hoehn and Yahr stages II–III, were randomly assigned to NW or standard rehabilitation (SR) programs, comprising twelve rehabilitation sessions conducted bi-weekly throughout the 6-week study period. Results: Median Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale part III scores were significantly reduced with NW, by 8.5, and with SR, by 6.0 points (both p < 0.001), with significantly greater improvement with NW than with SR (p = 0.047). Gait quality and balance control, measured using the Dynamic Gait Index, improved with NW by a median of 8.0 and with SR by 5.5 points (both p < 0.001), with slightly greater improvement with NW, compared to the SR group (p = 0.064). Quality of life, assessed using the Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39), improved with NW by a median of 15 and with SR by 12 points, p = 0.001 and p = 0.008, respectively. Conclusions: The 6-week Nordic Walking program improves functional performance, quality of gait, and quality of life in patients with PD and has comparable effectiveness to standard rehabilitation.

1. Introduction

Parkinson’s disease (PD) is one of the most common neurodegenerative disorders, affecting 1% of the population above the age of 60 years and 4% of the population above the age of 80 years [1]. Increasing dopaminergic deficits in PD result in bradykinesia, resting tremor, rigidity, and postural instability, which inevitably lead to general motor impairment. Dopaminergic treatment reduces motor symptoms of PD; however, it has to be supported by constant active motor rehabilitation to maintain patients’ physical fitness necessary for their independence [2,3,4].
Regular motor rehabilitation in PD was shown to reduce disease symptoms and improve physical fitness and quality of life [5,6]. Various types of exercises, diverse methods, and different activities are utilized in patients with PD [7]. Most of these rehabilitation programs, however, require individual physiotherapist supervision and, as such, can only be delivered in specialist physiotherapy clinics, which may be expensive and resource-consuming [2,8,9,10]. Therefore, there is a need for simpler, inexpensive alternatives, especially in countries with limited access to rehabilitation services.
Several different patterned exercise methods were proposed for motor rehabilitation in patients with PD [11,12,13,14,15], but a general conclusion on their efficacy is always difficult because of different approaches or different local standards. Nordic Walking (NW) is a sport-walking activity that combines active use of the trunk and upper limbs with traditional walking. It is easy to learn, straightforward to execute, economical, and low-risk as an intervention for PD [16]. The use of poles and upper body rhythmic movements act as external cues to restore movement control, triggering intact circuits and bypassing the defective basal ganglia [3,17,18,19]. Patients may work on improving their stride length, gait variability, maximal walking speed, or balance, all of these being PD-specific limitations [20]. Furthermore, NW can be managed in almost every location and in groups, thus fostering an active lifestyle and social engagement in patients with PD [21,22,23,24]. Therefore, we aimed to determine the clinical effectiveness of a 6-week Nordic Walking rehabilitation program in patients with PD, in comparison to standard rehabilitation (SR).

2. Materials and Methods

Forty consecutive patients with idiopathic PD (IPD), diagnosed according to the UK Parkinson’s Disease Society Brain Bank (PDSBB) clinical diagnostic criteria [25] and Hoehn and Yahr (H–Y) disease stages II–III [26], selected from an outpatients’ database in our center, were recruited to this prospective study. PDSBB clinical criteria for IPD include typical clinical presentation, good response to levodopa, and a full differential diagnosis, also involving neuroimaging techniques (CT or MRI). Patients with dementia (Mini-Mental State Examination, MMSE < 24) [27], severe motor fluctuations, freezing, orthostatic hypotension, disabling dyskinesia, severe depression, or other medical conditions significantly affecting mobility or ability to exercise were excluded. Every patient had an optimized treatment with oral drugs, without changes within at least four weeks prior to enrolment, and there was no previous rehabilitation.
Recruited participants were randomly assigned to either of the two groups, NW or SR. The randomization scheme controlled for participant gender to maintain equal within-group and between-group sex distribution.
Each patient from the NW and SR groups participated in 12 rehabilitation sessions conducted bi-weekly over a period of six weeks. All participants were advised to keep up with their usual daily activities at an intensity identical to the one from before the enrolment. A 70% session completion rate was assumed to be sufficient for data inclusion in analyses.
Each NW group session, supervised by a physiotherapist with qualification in NW, was delivered outdoors (in a park). Sessions lasted 90 min and consisted of a warm-up (5–10 min) and specialized NW training aimed at improving walking intensity and distance (60 min), followed by cooling down and stretching (5–10 min). Each individual SR session, supervised by a physiotherapist, was delivered indoors in the rehabilitation facility. SR sessions lasted 45 min and consisted of individually tailored, standard, general-purpose exercises aimed at improving fine and gross motor skills (stretching, high-amplitude movements), as well as active workouts for muscle strength, flexibility, balance, gait, and transfers [28,29,30,31].
The primary endpoint was the between-group difference in the change of the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) motor (part III) scores [32,33], from baseline to the end of the 6-week intervention. UPDRS is designed to longitudinally monitor Parkinson’s-disease-related disability and impairment. Its part III evaluates motor disability and includes ratings for tremor, slowness (bradykinesia), stiffness (rigidity), and balance. It consists of 27 items, where each response is numerically scored 0–4, with a higher score indicating greater symptom severity. A maximum total score of 108 reflects the highest disability level. We considered a 5-point change in the UPDRS motor (part III) score to be the minimal clinically important change (MCIC), as it was shown to be the most appropriate cut-off score for H–Y stages I to III [34]. The between-group differences in the UPDRS motor score of 2.5 (minimum), 5.2 (moderate) and 10.8 points (large) were considered to be clinically important differences (CID) [35].
The secondary outcome measures included changes in functional performance and quality of life parameters. The Dynamic Gait Index (DGI) [36] and timed up-and-go test (TUG) [37,38] are measures of functional mobility, gait quality, and balance control, which may help to assess the risk of falls in older adults [39]. The DGI, with its 8 task-oriented items, measures gait quality, focusing on an individual’s ability to modify gait in response to task demands—e.g., changing gait speed, pivot turning, or climbing stairs, which are considered practical objectives in patients with PD. The TUG, on the other hand, is a measure of functional mobility. In patients with PD, changes of 2.9 points (13.3%) in DGI and 3.5 s (29.8%) in TUG were considered to be minimal detectable changes (MDC) [40]. We used the DGI cut-off score of 22 points to identify patients with a higher risk of falls, as it enables a fairly accurate discrimination between fallers and “safe ambulators” in patients with PD (AUC = 0.84, sensitivity = 0.89, and specificity = 0.48) [39].
The Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39) [41] was used to measure changes in the general health status and quality of life of our participants. It is the most commonly used self-reported, disease-specific health status measure, which ascertains patient difficulties across 8 dimensions of daily living: mobility, activities of daily living (ADL), emotional well-being, stigma of the disease, social support, cognition, communication, and bodily discomfort [10,20,22,42,43,44]. The measure is very subjective but thoroughly reflects the well-being of patients with PD. Changes of −4.72 and +4.22 points in PDQ-39 scores over the study period were considered the minimal clinically important limits of improvement and worsening, respectively (MCIC) [45].
Physiotherapists delivering rehabilitation sessions were blinded to all clinical data. Neurological assessments were performed in the neurological outpatient clinic by two neurologists certified in administering the UPDRS, each with over 10 years of experience in PD management, who were blinded to the participant rehabilitation group assignment. Independent physiotherapists, also blinded to the participant rehabilitation group assignment, performed the DGI and TUG and supervised self-reported PDQ 39 in the physiotherapy clinic on the same day as the neurological assessments. All tests were carried out during the medication ‘‘ON’’ period, and doses of antiparkinsonian medication were stable during the whole study period in every participant.
Statistical analysis was performed with use of SYSTAT 12 software (SPSS science, Chicago, IL, USA). Data were presented as a median with minimum and maximum values or as proportions. Having checked the normality of distribution using the Shapiro–Wilk test, the Mann–Whitney U test was used to analyze the between-group differences. A chi-square or Fisher’s exact test was used to analyze categorical data between studied groups. Changes from baseline within each treatment group were analyzed using the Wilcoxon or McNemar test. A p value below 0.05 was considered significant.
The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical University of Silesia (KNW/0022/KB1/111/I/10), and it conforms to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki of 1995. All patients gave written informed consent to participate in the study. The study was performed in the years 2013–2014.

3. Results

Forty patients with PD, median age 64.0 (50–75) years (50.0% women), were enrolled in the study and randomly assigned to two equal groups (20 patients each) of different rehabilitation strategy, NW or SR. Each patient completed the entire rehabilitation program. Proportions of men and women were equal within and between groups and there were no age differences between groups. The median age of patients at the onset of the disease was 58.0 (35–72) years and median duration of PD treatment was 6.0 (2–18) years, with no between-group differences. The distribution of cases in H–Y stages II and III was balanced between groups. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics between groups. The baseline demographic and clinical data are presented in the Table 1.

3.1. Baseline Clinical Presentation

The median baseline motor UPDRS part III scores were not statistically significantly different between the NW and SR groups (p = 0.516), although, numerically, median UPDRS part III score was three points lower in the NW group than in the SR (24.0 (9–42) vs. 21.0 (9–52), respectively), which was slightly greater than the minimal CID of 2.5 points. The median difference in baseline DGI scores between the NW and SR groups (10.0 (4–23) vs. 14.0 (6–23), respectively) was not statistically significant (p = 0.283). The overall percentage of patients at high risk of fall (DGI score < 22) was high (87.5%) at baseline, and there were no significant differences between the NW and SR groups (90.0% and 85.0% of patients at high risk of fall, respectively, p = 0.633).
The median baseline TUG results were within normal limits in the NW and SR groups (7.09 s (5.25–10.15 s) vs. 7.49 s (5.09–33.82 s), respectively) and without significant differences between groups (p = 0.402). Individually, only one patient in the SR group had a TUG result above 30 s and three patients (two in the SR and one in the NW group) had TUG results slightly above 10 s. Additionally, median baseline PDQ-39 scores were not statistically different between the NW and SR groups (59.5 (8–91) vs. 61.0 (16–103), respectively, p = 0.655).

3.2. Results after 6 Weeks of Training

The median values of UPDRS, DGI, TUG, and PDQ-39 significantly improved in both rehabilitation groups (all differences between baseline and the end of study, p < 0.001, except for the change in the SR group in PDQ-39, p = 0.008) (Figure 1a). The median improvement in UPDRS part III score exceeded the 5-point MCIC in both rehabilitation groups; therefore, functional improvement in both groups was considered clinically significant. After 6 weeks of the NW program, functional impairment reduction measured by UPDRS part III scores was significantly greater (p = 0.047) than after SR (reduction of 8.5 vs. 6.0 points, respectively).
The improvement of gait quality and balance control assessed using the DGI scores was greater than the MDC of 2.9 points in both rehabilitation groups. After 6 weeks of participation in the study, reduction of gait impairment measured with DGI scores was greater in the NW than in the SR group (8.0 vs. 5.5 points, respectively), but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.064) (Figure 1b). The proportion of patients with a high risk for falls (DGI scores below 22) decreased from 90% to 65% and from 85% to 65% in the NW and SR groups, respectively, and there was no difference between groups in the reduction rate (p = 0.705).
The median TUG test results improved slightly in the NW and the SR group (−0.96 s (−2.75 to −0.18) vs. –1.18 s (−3.16 to −0.10), respectively, p = 0.561) (Figure 1c). Observed median changes were not considered clinically relevant in either of the two groups, as they did not exceed the MDC of 3.5 s (or 29.8%). Substantial improvements could not be expected, as baseline values were within normal limits (<10 s) in the majority of patients.
Functional improvement in both rehabilitation groups was associated with substantial changes in the quality of life scores measured with the PDQ-39, but there was no difference in the magnitude of change between the NW and SR groups (−15.0 points (−43 to 16) vs. –12.0 points (−40 to 47), respectively, p = 0.685) (Figure 1d). The improvements in PDQ-39 scores in the NW and SR groups exceeded the MCIC of 4.72 and therefore were considered clinically relevant. There was no case of injury or fall sustained during the NW training or SR activities.

4. Discussion

This study showed that short active motor rehabilitation programs provide substantial functional benefit for patients with PD in improving their quality of life. This supports previously observed positive effects of different rehabilitation methods in PD [46,47]. It was already shown that exercise enhances the efficacy of dopamine substituting compounds, probably as a result of an improved endogenous dopamine release [48]. However, although evidence-based review of treatments for the motor symptoms of PD categorized non-pharmacologic and physiotherapy techniques as “clinically useful”, patterned exercise methods, such as NW, were categorized as only “possibly useful” because of insufficient evidence for their effectiveness alone [7,16]. This study adds to the general understanding of the role of physical exercise in PD because relatively short rehabilitation intervention resulted in a substantial functional improvement without any changes to medical treatment. We have also shown that, being simple and easily accessible, Nordic Walking training may be complementary to standard rehabilitation, as it offers comparable functional results.
Both rehabilitation programs showed comparable efficacy for improvement of functional performance, with the change in UPDRS part III scores exceeding the MCIC of 5 points. The UPDRS scale is widely used in randomized clinical trials evaluating medical treatments for PD [32,33]. Such trials are most often designed to detect treatment effects with significantly longer follow-up, and the MCIC in UPDRS part III was determined in patients receiving treatment for PD for at least 6 months [34]. Our results achieved in UPDRS motor scores are comparable to those reported by others, where mean improvement after the NW rehabilitation program was 6.4 points in one study [20] and 7.5 points in the other [22]. Substantial improvement achieved in both groups after only 6 weeks in our study, and without any additional changes to medical treatment, confirms the high value of motor rehabilitation as an essential part of standard of care in PD.
A significant functional improvement after 6 weeks of rehabilitation was also reflected in both secondary measures, DGI and TUG, which are frequently used for the assessment of treatment-related benefits [49,50,51]. Both rehabilitation strategies resulted in a substantial improvement of DGI scores, which was consistent with the change observed in UPDRS. This was reflected in the change in the proportion of patients at high risk of falls (DGI < 22), which decreased substantially in both study groups and without any change in medication. It confirms previous findings that exercise training can improve balance and gait ability in individuals with PD and decrease their fall rates over both, short- and long-term periods [52].
The TUG was the only stopwatch-based test used in our study. Although a significant improvement was observed in both rehabilitation groups, neither of them hit the MDC threshold of 3.5 s (29.8%); therefore, the change cannot be considered clinically relevant. The TUG and its modifications (TUGFS—timed up-and-go forced speed—and TUGSS—timed up-and-go at self-selected speed) are often used in PD studies, including NW, but the results are not always positive [22,42,43]. Considering that median baseline TUG results in both groups were within normal limits (<10 s) in our study, substantial improvements could not be expected. It seems that stopwatch-based tests may not be the best option for clinical assessment of complex functional limitations in patients with PD, because their results do not closely correlate with other clinical measures. In our study, the DGI better reflected initial gait or mobility limitations and subsequent rehabilitation-related changes than the TUG.
This study showed that functional improvement observed across all measures in both rehabilitation groups (NW and SR) was also reflected in a substantial improvement in quality of life, which is in line with previous observations [43,53]. Positive effects of NW may also be attributable to the social aspect of group training, where interaction with fellow PD patients helps subjects to better accept their condition [54], or to the more indirect beneficial effects of improved mobility on sleep, constipation, mood, or cognition [21]. Quality of life is the principle of well-being perceived by people, and our findings add to the evidence supporting the efficacy of motor rehabilitation in patients with PD.
The value of NW was assessed in several studies in patients with PD, although an analytical review of six randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of NW training in PD [16] (with the biggest NW group being 30 PD patients and study duration being 4, 6, 8, 12, or 24 months) is inconclusive, mainly due to significant methodological heterogeneity between these trials. The studies differed in sample size and the duration of NW training. The study by Monteiro et al. [43] conducted in a similar-sized group, showed that NW improves functional parameters and walking mobility better than the so-called free walk, although their study group was more heterogeneous (H–Y stage I–IV) than ours (H–Y stage II–III).
Several different patterned exercise methods were proposed for motor rehabilitation in patients with PD [11,12,13,14,15]; however, there is no specific guidance on their individual value because of substantial heterogeneity between studies. In our study, the SR sessions were shorter, although 90 min NW sessions included warming up and cooling down, and thus, the time for exercise was comparable. The NW sessions were carried out in the local park, thus not requiring the special scheduling of SR, which had to be delivered in the physiotherapy clinic. The latter required additional commuting time and scheduling logistics. Furthermore, SR, unlike NW, was delivered in individual rather than group sessions, requiring higher involvement of physiotherapy staff at the center. In comparison with SR, NW was easier to access, it was a group activity carried outside, with only one instructor involved at the beginning, and after the initial general practice, no further assistance was needed.
There are some limitations to our study. Our study group was not fully representative for the whole population of patients with PD, as we included only patients with H–Y stages II–III. Patient selection was based on an assumption that the less disabled patients (Hoehn–Yahr stage I) may be less interested in physical activity and the most disabled ones are too physically limited to access NW or SR. We did not intend to verify the clinical diagnosis of IPD with the use of additional neuroimaging techniques, such as dopamine transporter images (PET or SPECT) or MIBG scintigraphy, due to funding limitations. Participants were diagnosed with IPD based on PDSBB clinical diagnostic criteria, the diagnostic accuracy of which is 82% [25]. All inclusion/exclusion criteria were confirmed at the study entry based on all historical data, including neuroimaging documentation (CT or MRI), to exclude possible cerebral abnormalities such as structural lesions in the basal ganglia, multiple small vessel disease, or dilated ventricles, which may affect gait, ADL, or Parkinsonian symptoms. The number of men and women in our study was equal, just as in the study by Reuter et al. [20], which was intentional and forced by our randomization algorithm. We assumed that maintaining gender parity in all groups might help to avoid differences in clinical presentation or different response to physical activity [55]. Unfortunately, this resulted in an imbalanced clinical presentation at baseline as measured with UPDRS and other clinical variables. We used the first published UPDRS [32,33]; therefore, it is difficult to compare our results with other studies using more recent UPDRS versions [56]. The study lacks longitudinal observation, and we cannot assess whether the clinical effect could be maintained after study completion, just as we cannot predict whether the participants will regularly continue their NW activity.

5. Conclusions

A 6-week Nordic Walking training program improves functional performance, quality of gait, and quality of life in patients with PD and shows equal effectiveness to standard rehabilitation. Inexpensive and easily accessible, Nordic Walking activity may be complementary in an optimized standard of care for older men and women with PD.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.S.-D., A.K., and A.G.; methodology, J.S.-D., A.K., and E.K.; formal analysis, E.K., M.A., and A.K.; investigation, E.K., J.S.-D., A.G., and D.W.-Z.; resources, J.S.-D., A.G., and E.K.; data curation, J.S.-D., M.A., E.K., and A.G.; writing—original draft preparation, M.A., E.K., and A.G.; writing—review and editing, J.S.-D., A.K., and D.W.-Z.; supervision, E.K. and M.A.; project administration, J.S.-D., E.K., and D.W.-Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Karolina Kalisz in proofreading the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest, except M.A., who is an employee of Novartis.

References

  1. Elbaz, A.; Carcaillon, L.; Kab, S.; Moisan, F. Epidemiology of parkinson’s disease. Rev. Neurol. 2016, 172, 14–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Intzandt, B.; Beck, E.N.; Silveira, C.R.A. The effects of exercise on cognition and gait in parkinson’s disease: A scoping review. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2018, 95, 136–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Cholewa, J.; Cholewa, J.; Gorzkowska, A.; Malecki, A.; Stanula, A. Can rehabilitation influence the efficiency of control signals in complex motion strategies? BioMed Res. Int. 2017, 2017, 3631624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Lauze, M.; Daneault, J.F.; Duval, C. The effects of physical activity in parkinson’s disease: A review. J. Parkinsons Dis. 2016, 6, 685–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Cascaes da Silva, F.; Iop Rda, R.; Domingos Dos Santos, P.; Aguiar Bezerra de Melo, L.M.; Barbosa Gutierres Filho, P.J.; Da Silva, R. Effects of physical-exercise-based rehabilitation programs on the quality of life of patients with parkinson’s disease: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. J. Aging Phys. Act. 2016, 24, 484–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Bowman, T.; Gervasoni, E.; Parelli, R.; Jonsdottir, J.; Ferrarin, M.; Cattaneo, D.; Carpinella, I. Predictors of mobility domain of health-related quality of life after rehabilitation in parkinson’s disease: A pilot study. Arch. Physiother. 2018, 8, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Fox, S.H.; Katzenschlager, R.; Lim, S.Y.; Barton, B.; De Bie, R.M.A.; Seppi, K.; Coelho, M.; Sampaio, C.; Movement Disorder Society Evidence-Based Medicine Committee. International parkinson and movement disorder society evidence-based medicine review: Update on treatments for the motor symptoms of parkinson’s disease. Mov. Disord. 2018, 33, 1248–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. King, L.A.; Horak, F.B. Delaying mobility disability in people with parkinson disease using a sensorimotor agility exercise program. Phys. Ther. 2009, 89, 384–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Earhart, G.M.; Dibble, L.E.; Ellis, T.; Nieuwboer, A. Rehabilitation and parkinson’s disease 2013. Parkinsons Dis. 2013, 2013, 506375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Ebersbach, G.; Ebersbach, A.; Gandor, F.; Wegner, B.; Wissel, J.; Kupsch, A. Impact of physical exercise on reaction time in patients with parkinson’s disease-data from the berlin big study. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2014, 95, 996–999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Duchesne, C.; Lungu, O.; Nadeau, A.; Robillard, M.E.; Bore, A.; Bobeuf, F.; Lafontaine, A.L.; Gheysen, F.; Bherer, L.; Doyon, J. Enhancing both motor and cognitive functioning in parkinson’s disease: Aerobic exercise as a rehabilitative intervention. Brain Cogn. 2015, 99, 68–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Picelli, A.; Varalta, V.; Melotti, C.; Zatezalo, V.; Fonte, C.; Amato, S.; Saltuari, L.; Santamato, A.; Fiore, P.; Smania, N. Effects of treadmill training on cognitive and motor features of patients with mild to moderate parkinson’s disease: A pilot, single-blind, randomized controlled trial. Funct. Neurol. 2016, 31, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  13. Nadeau, A.; Lungu, O.; Duchesne, C.; Robillard, M.E.; Bore, A.; Bobeuf, F.; Plamondon, R.; Lafontaine, A.L.; Gheysen, F.; Bherer, L.; et al. A 12-week cycling training regimen improves gait and executive functions concomitantly in people with parkinson’s disease. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2016, 10, 690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Van der Kolk, N.M.; De Vries, N.M.; Penko, A.L.; Van der Vlugt, M.; Mulder, A.A.; Post, B.; Alberts, J.L.; Bloem, B.R. A remotely supervised home-based aerobic exercise programme is feasible for patients with parkinson’s disease: Results of a small randomised feasibility trial. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 2018, 89, 1003–1005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Studer, V.; Maestri, R.; Clerici, I.; Spina, L.; Zivi, I.; Ferrazzoli, D.; Frazzitta, G. Treadmill training with cues and feedback improves gait in people with more advanced parkinson’s disease. J. Parkinsons Dis. 2017, 7, 729–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cugusi, L.; Manca, A.; Dragone, D.; Deriu, F.; Solla, P.; Secci, C.; Monticone, M.; Mercuro, G. Nordic walking for the management of people with parkinson disease: A systematic review. PM R 2017, 9, 1157–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lim, I.; Van Wegen, E.; De Goede, C.; Deutekom, M.; Nieuwboer, A.; Willems, A.; Jones, D.; Rochester, L.; Kwakkel, G. Effects of external rhythmical cueing on gait in patients with parkinson’s disease: A systematic review. Clin. Rehabil. 2005, 19, 695–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Brauer, S.G.; Morris, M.E. Can people with parkinson’s disease improve dual tasking when walking? Gait Posture 2010, 31, 229–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Warlop, T.; Detrembleur, C.; Buxes Lopez, M.; Stoquart, G.; Lejeune, T.; Jeanjean, A. Does nordic walking restore the temporal organization of gait variability in parkinson’s disease? J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2017, 14, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Reuter, I.; Mehnert, S.; Leone, P.; Kaps, M.; Oechsner, M.; Engelhardt, M. Effects of a flexibility and relaxation programme, walking, and nordic walking on parkinson’s disease. J. Aging Res. 2011, 2011, 232473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Van Eijkeren, F.J.; Reijmers, R.S.; Kleinveld, M.J.; Minten, A.; Bruggen, J.P.; Bloem, B.R. Nordic walking improves mobility in parkinson’s disease. Mov. Disord. 2008, 23, 2239–2243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Cugusi, L.; Solla, P.; Serpe, R.; Carzedda, T.; Piras, L.; Oggianu, M.; Gabba, S.; Di Blasio, A.; Bergamin, M.; Cannas, A.; et al. Effects of a nordic walking program on motor and non-motor symptoms, functional performance and body composition in patients with parkinson’s disease. Neurorehabilitation 2015, 37, 245–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Franzoni, L.T.; Monteiro, E.P.; Oliveira, H.B.; Da Rosa, R.G.; Costa, R.R.; Rieder, C.; Martinez, F.G.; Peyre-Tartaruga, L.A. A 9-week nordic and free walking improve postural balance in parkinson’s disease. Sports Med. Int. Open 2018, 2, E28–E34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Zhou, L.; Gougeon, M.A.; Nantel, J. Nordic walking improves gait power profiles at the knee joint in parkinson’s disease. J. Aging Phys. Act. 2018, 26, 84–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Hughes, A.J.; Daniel, S.E.; Kilford, L.; Lees, A.J. Accuracy of clinical diagnosis of idiopathic parkinson’s disease: A clinico-pathological study of 100 cases. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 1992, 55, 181–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Hoehn, M.M.; Yahr, M.D. Parkinsonism: Onset, progression and mortality. Neurology 1967, 17, 427–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Folstein, M.F.; Folstein, S.E.; McHugh, P.R. “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J. Psychiatr. Res. 1975, 12, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Fox, S.H.; Katzenschlager, R.; Lim, S.Y.; Ravina, B.; Seppi, K.; Coelho, M.; Poewe, W.; Rascol, O.; Goetz, C.G.; Sampaio, C. The movement disorder society evidence-based medicine review update: Treatments for the motor symptoms of parkinson’s disease. Mov. Disord. 2011, 26, S42–S80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zesiewicz, T.A.; Evatt, M.L. Potential influences of complementary therapy on motor and non-motor complications in parkinson’s disease. CNS Drugs 2009, 23, 817–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Wang, Y.; Xie, C.L.; Wang, W.W.; Lu, L.; Fu, D.L.; Wang, X.T.; Zheng, G.Q. Epidemiology of complementary and alternative medicine use in patients with parkinson’s disease. J. Clin. Neurosci. 2013, 20, 1062–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Hackney, M.E.; Earhart, G.M. Health-related quality of life and alternative forms of exercise in parkinson disease. Parkinsonism Relat. Disord. 2009, 15, 644–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Fahn, S.; Elton, R. UPDRS Development Committee. Unified parkinson’s disease rating scale. In Recent Developments in Parkinson’s Disease; Fahn, S., Marsden, C., Calne, D., Goldstein, M., Eds.; Macmillan: Florham Park, NJ, USA, 1987; pp. 153–163. [Google Scholar]
  33. Movement Disorder Society Task Force on Rating Scales for Parkinson’s Disease. The unified parkinson’s disease rating scale (updrs): Status and recommendations. Mov. Disord. 2003, 18, 738–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Schrag, A.; Sampaio, C.; Counsell, N.; Poewe, W. Minimal clinically important change on the unified parkinson’s disease rating scale. Mov. Disord. 2006, 21, 1200–1207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Shulman, L.M.; Gruber-Baldini, A.L.; Anderson, K.E.; Fishman, P.S.; Reich, S.G.; Weiner, W.J. The clinically important difference on the unified parkinson’s disease rating scale. Arch. Neurol. 2010, 67, 64–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Tinetti, M.E. Performance-oriented assessment of mobility problems in elderly patients. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 1986, 34, 119–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Mathias, S.; Nayak, U.S.; Isaacs, B. Balance in elderly patients: The “get-up and go” test. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 1986, 67, 387–389. [Google Scholar]
  38. Podsiadlo, D.; Richardson, S. The timed “up & go”: A test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 1991, 39, 142–148. [Google Scholar]
  39. Dibble, L.E.; Lange, M. Predicting falls in individuals with parkinson disease: A reconsideration of clinical balance measures. J. Neurol. Phys. Ther. 2006, 30, 60–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Huang, S.L.; Hsieh, C.L.; Wu, R.M.; Tai, C.H.; Lin, C.H.; Lu, W.S. Minimal detectable change of the timed “up & go” test and the dynamic gait index in people with parkinson disease. Phys. Ther. 2011, 91, 114–121. [Google Scholar]
  41. Peto, V.; Jenkinson, C.; Fitzpatrick, R. Pdq-39: A review of the development, validation and application of a parkinson’s disease quality of life questionnaire and its associated measures. J. Neurol. 1998, 245, S10–S14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bang, D.H.; Shin, W.S. Effects of an intensive nordic walking intervention on the balance function and walking ability of individuals with parkinson’s disease: A randomized controlled pilot trial. Aging Clin. Exp. Res. 2017, 29, 993–999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Monteiro, E.P.; Franzoni, L.T.; Cubillos, D.M.; De Oliveira Fagundes, A.; Carvalho, A.R.; Oliveira, H.B.; Pantoja, P.D.; Schuch, F.B.; Rieder, C.R.; Martinez, F.G.; et al. Effects of nordic walking training on functional parameters in parkinson’s disease: A randomized controlled clinical trial. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2017, 27, 351–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ebersbach, G.; Ebersbach, A.; Edler, D.; Kaufhold, O.; Kusch, M.; Kupsch, A.; Wissel, J. Comparing exercise in parkinson’s disease--the berlin lsvt(r)big study. Mov. Disord. 2010, 25, 1902–1908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Horvath, K.; Aschermann, Z.; Kovacs, M.; Makkos, A.; Harmat, M.; Janszky, J.; Komoly, S.; Karadi, K.; Kovacs, N. Changes in quality of life in parkinson’s disease: How large must they be to be relevant? Neuroepidemiology 2017, 48, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Nonnekes, J.; Nieuwboer, A. Towards personalized rehabilitation for gait impairments in parkinson’s disease. J. Parkinsons Dis. 2018, 8, S101–S106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Dipasquale, S.; Meroni, R.; Sasanelli, F.; Messineo, I.; Piscitelli, D.; Perin, C.; Cornaggia, C.M.; Cerri, C.G. Physical therapy versus a general exercise programme in patients with hoehn yahr stage ii parkinson’s disease: A randomized controlled trial. J. Parkinsons Dis. 2017, 7, 203–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Muhlack, S.; Welnic, J.; Woitalla, D.; Muller, T. Exercise improves efficacy of levodopa in patients with parkinson’s disease. Mov. Disord. 2007, 22, 427–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Li, F.; Harmer, P.; Fitzgerald, K.; Eckstrom, E.; Stock, R.; Galver, J.; Maddalozzo, G.; Batya, S.S. Tai chi and postural stability in patients with parkinson’s disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012, 366, 511–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Morris, M.E.; Menz, H.B.; McGinley, J.L.; Watts, J.J.; Huxham, F.E.; Murphy, A.T.; Danoudis, M.E.; Iansek, R. A randomized controlled trial to reduce falls in people with parkinson’s disease. Neurorehabilit. Neural Repair 2015, 29, 777–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Silva-Batista, C.; Corcos, D.M.; Kanegusuku, H.; Piemonte, M.E.P.; Gobbi, L.T.B.; De Lima-Pardini, A.C.; De Mello, M.T.; Forjaz, C.L.M.; Ugrinowitsch, C. Balance and fear of falling in subjects with parkinson’s disease is improved after exercises with motor complexity. Gait Posture 2018, 61, 90–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Shen, X.; Wong-Yu, I.S.; Mak, M.K. Effects of exercise on falls, balance, and gait ability in parkinson’s disease: A meta-analysis. Neurorehabilit. Neural Repair 2016, 30, 512–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  53. Bombieri, F.; Schena, F.; Pellegrini, B.; Barone, P.; Tinazzi, M.; Erro, R. Walking on four limbs: A systematic review of nordic walking in parkinson disease. Parkinsonism Relat. Disord. 2017, 38, 8–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Keus, S.H.; Bloem, B.R.; Hendriks, E.J.; Bredero-Cohen, A.B.; Munneke, M.; Practice Recommendations Development, G. Evidence-based analysis of physical therapy in parkinson’s disease with recommendations for practice and research. Mov. Disord. 2007, 22, 451–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Cerri, S.; Mus, L.; Blandini, F. Parkinson’s disease in women and men: What’s the difference? J. Parkinsons Dis. 2019, 9, 501–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Goetz, C.G.; Tilley, B.C.; Shaftman, S.R.; Stebbins, G.T.; Fahn, S.; Martinez-Martin, P.; Poewe, W.; Sampaio, C.; Stern, M.B.; Dodel, R.; et al. Movement disorder society-sponsored revision of the unified parkinson’s disease rating scale (mds-updrs): Scale presentation and clinimetric testing results. Mov. Disord. 2008, 23, 2129–2170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Medicina 56 00356 g001 550
Figure 1. Box and whisker plots of median change in (a) Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) part III scores, (b) Dynamic Gait Index (DGI) scores, (c) timed up-and-go test (TUG) results and (d) 39-item Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39) scores in patients with Parkinson’s disease after 6 weeks of Nordic Walking program or standard rehabilitation (n = 20 in each group). Central line of the box represents the median, top and bottom margins of the box represent the 1st and 3rd quartiles, and the ends of the whiskers represent the minimum and maximum values; significant outliers are presented with asterisks. Pairwise comparisons performed with Mann–Whitney U test.
Figure 1. Box and whisker plots of median change in (a) Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) part III scores, (b) Dynamic Gait Index (DGI) scores, (c) timed up-and-go test (TUG) results and (d) 39-item Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39) scores in patients with Parkinson’s disease after 6 weeks of Nordic Walking program or standard rehabilitation (n = 20 in each group). Central line of the box represents the median, top and bottom margins of the box represent the 1st and 3rd quartiles, and the ends of the whiskers represent the minimum and maximum values; significant outliers are presented with asterisks. Pairwise comparisons performed with Mann–Whitney U test.
Medicina 56 00356 g001
Table
Table 1. Baseline demographic and clinical data of patients with Parkinson’s disease assigned to two rehabilitation strategies, Nordic Walking (NW) and standard rehabilitation (SR).
Table 1. Baseline demographic and clinical data of patients with Parkinson’s disease assigned to two rehabilitation strategies, Nordic Walking (NW) and standard rehabilitation (SR).
NW
N = 20		SR
N = 20
Women, n (%)10 (50.0)10 (50.0)
Age, years62.5 (50–75)65.5 (54–75)
Age at onset, years56.5 (35–70)59.0 (45–72)
Duration of treatment, years6.0 (3–18)5.0 (2–14)
Hoehn and Yahr stage, n (%)II, 9 (45.0)
III, 11 (55.0)		II, 11 (55.0)
III, 9 (45.0)
Note: Unless indicated, values are expressed as a median with minimum and maximum in brackets.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Szefler-Derela, J.; Arkuszewski, M.; Knapik, A.; Wasiuk-Zowada, D.; Gorzkowska, A.; Krzystanek, E. Effectiveness of 6-Week Nordic Walking Training on Functional Performance, Gait Quality, and Quality of Life in Parkinson’s Disease. Medicina 2020, 56, 356. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina56070356

AMA Style

Szefler-Derela J, Arkuszewski M, Knapik A, Wasiuk-Zowada D, Gorzkowska A, Krzystanek E. Effectiveness of 6-Week Nordic Walking Training on Functional Performance, Gait Quality, and Quality of Life in Parkinson’s Disease. Medicina. 2020; 56(7):356. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina56070356

Chicago/Turabian Style

Szefler-Derela, Justyna, Michal Arkuszewski, Andrzej Knapik, Dagmara Wasiuk-Zowada, Agnieszka Gorzkowska, and Ewa Krzystanek. 2020. "Effectiveness of 6-Week Nordic Walking Training on Functional Performance, Gait Quality, and Quality of Life in Parkinson’s Disease" Medicina 56, no. 7: 356. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina56070356

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop