Posture Evoked Response Evaluating Lower Extremity Balance Function

Objective: To test the Dynamic posturography and surface Electromyogram forthe normal people and lower limb joints injuries in postural evoked response, To explore,The impact of test condition, methods and individual factors to the posture evokedresponse, The feature of the Dynamic posturography and surface Electromyogram in thelower limb joints injuries.; The value of the alliance application between the Dynamicposturography and surface Electromyogram to assess the lower limb joints balancefunction in postural evoked response.Methold: To test the posture evoked response for sixty-two normal people andsixty-three patients with lower limb joints joint injuries by the Dynamic computerposturography, and record the Dynamic posturography, then record the lower limbsmuscle activity of the tibialis anterior muscle and gastrocnemius muscle in posturalevoked response. To compare whether there is any difference between the normalpeople and the normal reference value in the Dynamic posturography; To analyze theeffect of left and right lower limbs, height, sexual to the posture evoked response fornormal people; To analyze the feature of the Dynamic posturography and surfaceElectromyogram for the lower limb joints injuries..Result:1Compared the Dynamic posturography of the normal people with thenormal reference value in postural evoked response, The Sensory organization testequilibrium points have no obvious difference; There is no difference in the latencybetween the left and right limbs in Motor control test, however, under the medium speedcondition, the latency of the left and right limb is obviously less than the normalreference value, the difference has Statistical significance(P<0.05); The declinationtrend in Adaption test is consistent with the normal reference value, the delication trendbetween the first test and second test is smaller than the normal reference value, and thefirst test latency is significantly smaller than the normal reference value, the differencehas Statistical signifeicance(P<0.05); 2The analysis of the individual factors to the latency in postural evoked response,(1) The latency of the tibialis anterior muscle and gastrocnemius muscle in the posturalevoked response are under inconsistency: under the support surface around the ankleupward rotation (Toes-up) and horizontal moving backward (Backward), the tibialisanterior muscle latency recorded is longer than the gastrocnemius muscle; under thesupport surface around the ankle downward rotation (Toes-down) and horizontalmoving forward (Forward), the gastrocnemius muscle latency recorded is longer thanthe tibialis anterior muscle.(2) In the same peturbations, the latency of the left limb andright limb has no significant difference. However, with height increasing, the latencyincreases.(3) Under the support surface around the ankle upward rotation (Toes-up), thetibialis anterior muscle latency in male is significantly longer than the female (P<0.05);under the under the support surface around the ankle downward rotation (Toes-down),the tibialis anterior muscle latency in male is longer than the female, but thegastrocnemius muscle latency is shorter than the female (P<0.05), under the supportsurface horizontal moving forward (Forward), the latency of the tibialis anterior andgastrocnemius muscle muscle in male is longer than the female (P<0.05); However,under the support surface moving backward (Backward), there is no difference betweenthe latency of the tibialis anterior muscle and gastrocnemius muscle.3Compared the Dynamic posturography of the lower limb joints injuries inpostural evoked response with normal reference value, the Sensory organization testequilibrium points obviously decrease in the test three to six condition, the differencehas Statistical siginificance(P<0.05); There is no obviously difference in the latency inMotor control test, and the Adaption test delication trend is without obviousdelication(P<0.05); Compared with the normal people sEMG latency and amplitude inpostural evoked response, the tibialis anterior muscle latency is significantly longer andthe amplitude significantly decreas for the lower limb joints injuries, the difference hasStatistical significance(P<0.05).Conclusion:1Stimuli, sexual and height all affect surface Electromyogramlatency in postural evoked response.2The balance function and the adaption activitydecreases for the lower limb joints injuries.3The alliance application between theDynamic posturography and surface Electromyogram can assess the balance functionfor the lower limb joints injuries in postural evoked response.