Home > Riviste > European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine > Fascicoli precedenti > European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 2017 April;53(2) > European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 2017 April;53(2):184-200



Per abbonarsi
Sottometti un articolo
Segnala alla tua biblioteca


Publication history
Per citare questo articolo



European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 2017 April;53(2):184-200

DOI: 10.23736/S1973-9087.16.04272-6


lingua: Inglese

Effects of twelve weeks of aerobic or strength training in addition to standard care in Parkinson’s disease: a controlled study

Marie DEMONCEAU 1, 2, Didier MAQUET 1, Boris JIDOVTSEFF 1, Anne F. DONNEAU 3, Thierry BURY 1, Jean L. CROISIER 1, 4, Jean M. CRIELAARD 1, 4, Carlos, RODRIGUEZ de la CRUZ 1, Valérie DELVAUX 2, 5, Gaëtan GARRAUX 2, 5

1 Department of Sports, Rehabilitation and Movement Sciences, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium; 2 MoVeRe Research Group, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium; 3 Department of Public Health, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium; 4 Department of Physical Medicine, University Hospital Centre, Liège, Belgium; 5 Department of Neurology, University Hospital Centre, Liège, Belgium


BACKGROUND: Physical exercise in addition to standard care (SC) in patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD) is now a common practice in many care units. However, exercises can cover a wide range of interventions, and the specific effects of different interventions still deserve to be further investigated.
AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of 12 weeks of two different types of physical exercises with SC in patients suffering from PD.
DESIGN: Pseudo-randomized controlled trial.
SETTING: University laboratory for outcomes, University Hospital Centre for interventions.
POPULATION: Fifty-two outpatients suffering from mild to moderate PD at baseline.
METHODS: Participants were allocated to three groups: the strength training (ST) group performed individualized upper and lower limbs strength training, the aerobic training (AE) group performed tailored gradual aerobic cycling, and the third group received SC. The effects of the interventions on body function were assessed by measuring isokinetic concentric peak torque for knee extension and flexion, peak oxygen consumption (VO2peak) and peak work load (PWL) during an incremental maximal cycling test. Changes in mobility were evaluated from spatial-temporal gait features measured by mean of an accelerometer system and the Six-Minute Walk Distance (6MWD) Test. We used questionnaires to estimate health-related quality of life and habitual physical activity.
RESULTS: No significant changes in any outcome measures occurred in the SC group. More than 80% of the participants adequately completed the AE and the ST interventions. The ST group significantly improved all peak torque measures (P≤0.01), except knee extension in the least affected side (P=0.13). This group also improved the PWL (P=0.009) and 6mwd (P=0.03). The AE group improved the VO2peak (P=0.02) and PWL (P<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Physical fitness in patients with PD rapidly improved in compliance with training specificities, but better fitness hardly translated into better mobility and health-related quality of life.
CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: Physiotherapists can efficiently propose physical conditioning to patients with mild to moderate PD, but these interventions are insufficient to improve gait and participation. Notwithstanding, ST is an efficient intervention for improving walking capacity.

KEY WORDS: Parkinson disease - Rehabilitation - Exercise - Resistance training

inizio pagina