Focusing on Balance
Now available at Exercisabiilties with your Physical Therapist.
Humac Balance System: https://medelco.ca/products/humac-balance-system
Computerized balance measurement assessment and training system that provides instant visual feedback and tracks progression during balance exercises
- Orthopedic: Post-Surgical and Post-Trauma
- Older Adult Fall Prevention
- Neurologic Disorders
- Vestibular Disorders
1.) Study in the Journal of Physiotherapy:
“Video and computer-based interactive exercises are safe and improve task-specific balance in geriatric and neurological rehabilitation: a randomized trial”
Question: Does adding video/computer-based interactive exercises to inpatient geriatric and neurological rehabilitation improve mobility outcomes? Is it feasible and safe?
Method: RCT with 58 rehabilitation inpatients provided with the daily intervention of Humac balance system for 2 weeks.
Concussions: The addition of video/computer-based interactive exercises to usual rehabilitation is a safe and feasible way to increase exercise dose, but is not suitable for all. Adding the exercises to usual rehabilitation resulted in task-specific improvements in balance but not overall mobility with this study.
2.) A study from Technologies:
“Validation of the HUMAC Balance System in Comparison with Conventional Force Plates”
Abstract: In recent years, there has been intensified development of cost-effective alternatives to conventional force plates, such as those of Kistler and AMTI, in clinical and scientific research. To our knowledge, the evidence for the existing validity and reliability of the HUMAC Balance System has so far been lacking. Over the course of the study, the HUMAC Balance System, which is based on the WII Balance Board technology, was tested. 26 HUMAC Balance Systems in conjunction with 2 force plates, each from the manufacturers Kistler and AMTI, were examined and their properties under static and dynamic conditions were evaluated. Under static conditions, the HUMAC Balance System revealed a relatively constant and comparatively small margin of displacement error. However, tests of the force plates under dynamic conditions revealed contrasting results. The conventional force plates, with a margin of error of 2.5%, proved to have a smaller margin of error compared to the HUMAC Balance System, which had margins of error of 8.6% and 6.1% in x and y directions, respectively. A calibration method was developed to overcome these systematic deviations. After applying the calibration, the Balance Board margin of error was reduced to an acceptable maximum of 0.18%.
3.) Published in the Health Science Reports 2018
“Examining the reliability, correlation, and validity of commonly used assessment tools to measure balance”
Abstract: The Biodex SD Stability System has been shown to be a reliable assessment tool for postural stability. However, its ability to provide an accurate representation of balance has not been compared with functional performance measures such as the four‐square step test (FSST) and timed‐up‐and‐go test (TUG). The purpose of this study was to investigate reliability, internal consistency, and construct validity of FSST, TUG, and Biodex SD (limits of stability [LOS] and modified Clinical Test of Sensory Organization and Balance [m‐CTSIB]). Methods: An observational reliability and validity study was conducted. A convenience sample of 105 healthy adults, 77 females and 28 males, mean age 24.5 years old (± 4.66 SD) performed balance assessments including the FSST, TUG, Biodex SD LOS, and m‐CTSIB. For LOS, the overall percentage and test duration were recorded. For m‐CTSIB, the overall Sway Index was recorded. Condition 1 of the m‐CTSIB represented simple postural stability. Results: The Biodex SD LOS overall percentage, TUG, and FSST showed strong to excellent test‐retest reliability (ICC [3, 1] = .83 [mean 1: 58.14, mean 2: 60.54], .88 [mean 1: 6.98 seconds, mean 2: 6.91 seconds], .92 [mean 1: 6.29 seconds, mean 2: 6.14 seconds], respectively), while the Biodex SD m‐CTSIB overall percentage demonstrated strong test‐retest reliability (ICC [3, 1] = .75 [mean 1: 1.18, mean 2: 1.18]). The LOS test duration showed moderate test‐retest reliability (ICC [3, 1] = .58 [mean 1: 38.55 seconds, mean 2: 37.10 seconds]), while the m‐CTSIB condition 1 showed poor test‐retest reliability (ICC [3, 1] = .24 [mean 1: 0.63, mean 2: 0.66]). Weak construct validity was found between TUG, FSST, and Biodex SD measures of LOS and m‐CTSIB (r values = −0.15‐0.22). Conclusion: It is suggested that clinicians use more than one measure to assess different aspects of a patient’s balance deficits to better guide treatment and intervention.
Consider referring your clients with a need for higher-level balance assessment and training to Exercisabilities for the ability to utilize traditional balance training interventions paired with the use of the Humac balance system for improved results in balance.