Sensor- and equation-based sit-to-stand power: The effect of age and functional limitations

• Published in: Experimental gerontology Vol. 179; p. 112255
• Main Authors: Meulemans, Lien, Alcazar, Julian, Alegre, Luis M., Dalle, Sebastiaan, Koppo, Katrien, Seghers, Jan, Delecluse, Christophe, Van Roie, Evelien
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Elsevier Inc 01.08.2023; Elsevier
• Subjects: Aging; Chair rise; Functional capacity; Inertial measurement unit; Lower-limb muscle power; Aging; Chair rise; Lower-limb muscle power; Inertial measurement unit; Functional capacity
• ISSN: 0531-5565; 1873-6815; 1873-6815
• DOI: 10.1016/j.exger.2023.112255

Estimating lower-limb muscle power during sit-to-stand (STS) tests is feasible for large-scale implementation. This study investigated 1) whether age, functional limitations and sex have an influence on the movement strategy and power production during STS; and 2) potential differences between STS power estimated with either a simple equation or a sensor. Five-repetition STS data of 649 subjects (♂352 ♀297) aged 19 to 93 years were included. Subjects were divided in different age groups and levels of functioning. A body-fixed sensor measured (sub)durations, trunk movement (flexion/extension) and STS muscle power (Psensor). Additionally, mean STS muscle power was calculated by a mathematic equation (Alcazar et al., 2018b)Pformula.Results revealed that 1) older subjects and women showed greater trunk flexion before standing up than younger subjects and men, respectively (both p < 0.001); 2) well-functioning adults seemed to have the tendency to not extend the trunk fully during the sit-to-stand transition (mean difference extension – flexion range = −15.3° to −13.1°, p < 0.001); 3) mobility-limited older adults spent more time in the static sitting and standing positions than their well-functioning counterparts (all p < 0.001); 4) STS power decreased with age and was lower in women and in limited-functioning subjects compared to men and well-functioning subjects, respectively (p < 0.05); 5) Pformula was highly related to Psensor (ICC = 0.902, p < 0.001); and 6) Pformula demonstrated higher values than Psensor in well-functioning adults [mean difference = −0.31 W/kg and −0.22 W/kg for men and women, respectively (p < 0.001)], but not among limited-functioning older adults. To conclude, this study showed that age and functional limitations have an influence on the movement strategy during a 5-repetition STS test. Differences in movement strategy can affect the comparison between Pformula and Psensor. In well-functioning older adults, Pformula was slightly higher than Psensor, which might be related to an incomplete extension in the sit-to-stand transition. •Sensor- and equation-based sit-to-stand power are highly related.•Older adults use more trunk flexion than young adults when standing up from a chair.•Limited-functioning adults spent more time in the static phases of sit-to-stand.