Aquatic Physical Therapy: The Aquatic Functional Assessment Scale (AFAS) in Muscular Dystrophy. Issue 1 (2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Israel, Vera Lúcia
• Is Part Of: Journal of aquatic physical therapy. Volume 26:Issue 1(2018)
• Publication Date: 2018
• Subjects: Aquatic physical therapy -- Aquatic Functional Assessment Scale (AFAS) -- Muscular dystrophy -- Motor skills; Hydrotherapy -- Periodicals; Physical therapy -- Periodicals; 615.853
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2377-6102

Abstract

Abstract : Background and purpose. : The physical and functional limitations imposed by muscular dystrophy are characterized by progressive muscle weakness starting in the pelvic girdle and/or shoulder girdle. Aquatic physical therapy is a treatment resource for patients with this condition. The aim of this study was to evaluate an intervention for aquatic motor skills learning in patients with limb‐girdle muscular dystrophy. Case description. : A case study of 2 female volunteers, biological siblings, with progressive limb‐girdle muscular dystrophy. Intervention. : The aquatic program by Israel and the Aquatic Functional Assessment Scale (AFAS) were applied to measure aquatic motor behaviors. The AFAS comprises criteria ranked from 1 to 5, ranging from full assistance to independent execution of the aquatic motor behavior. Fifteen 30‐min intervention sessions were performed once weekly. The program trained 26 aquatic motor behaviors in the following four treatment phases: "adaptation" (A1‐A8), "mastering of the liquid medium" (D1‐D8), "specific thera‐peutic exercises" (E1‐E4), and "global body conditioning" (Cd1 to Cd6). Outcomes. : Eleven new aquatic behaviors and progress to pool independence were achieved in the acclimation phase, with mean scores increasing from 3.1 to 4.9 (participant "P I") and from 4.0 to 5.0 (participant "P II"). In the phase of mastering of the liquid medium (D1 to D8), "P I" means progressed from 2.8 to 4.3 and "P II" increased from 2.0 to 4.8. In the specific therapeutic exercises phase (E1 to E4), the progress of "P I" was from 3.8 to 4.3 while "P II" improved from 3.3 to 5.0. In the global body conditioning phase (Cd1 to Cd6), "P I" means progressed from 2.2 to 4.2 and "P II", from 2.2 to 4.7. Discussion. : The above scores indicate an improvement in the participants' neuromotor function.