Requirements for Eliciting a Spastic Response With Passive Joint Movements and the Influence of Velocity on Response Patterns: An Experimental Study of Velocity-Response Relationships in Mild Spasticity With Repeated-Measures Analysis.
clinical assessment
elbow joint
resistance
spasticity
velocity-dependent
Journal
Frontiers in neurology
ISSN: 1664-2295
Titre abrégé: Front Neurol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101546899
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
14
01
2022
accepted:
07
03
2022
entrez:
18
4
2022
pubmed:
19
4
2022
medline:
19
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Spasticity is defined as a velocity-dependent increase in tonic stretch reflexes and is manually assessed in clinical practice. However, the best method for the clinical assessment of spasticity has not been objectively described. This study analyzed the clinical procedure to assess spasticity of the elbow joint using an electrogoniometer and investigated the appropriate velocity required to elicit a spastic response and the influence of velocity on the kinematic response pattern. This study included eight healthy individuals and 15 patients with spasticity who scored 1 or 1+ on the modified Ashworth Scale (MAS). Examiners were instructed to manually assess spasticity twice at two different velocities (slow and fast velocity conditions). During the assessment, velocity, deceleration value, and angle [described as the % range of motion (%ROM)] at the moment of resistance were measured using an electrogoniometer. Differences between the slow and fast conditions were evaluated. In addition, variations among the fast condition such as the responses against passive elbow extension at <200, 200-300, 300-400, 400°/s velocities were compared between the MAS 1+, MAS 1, and control groups. Significant differences were observed in the angular deceleration value and %ROM in the fast velocity condition (417 ± 80°/s) between patients and healthy individuals, but there was no difference in the slow velocity condition (103 ± 29°/s). In addition, the deceleration values were significantly different between the MAS 1 and MAS 1+ groups in velocity conditions faster than 300°/s. In contrast, the value of %ROM plateaued when the velocity was faster than 200°/s. The velocity of the passive motion had a significant effect on the response pattern of the elbow joint. The velocity-response pattern differed between deceleration and the angle at which the catch occurred; the value of deceleration value for passive motion was highly dependent on the velocity, while the %ROM was relatively stable above a certain velocity threshold. These results provide clues for accurate assessment of spasticity in clinical practice.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Spasticity is defined as a velocity-dependent increase in tonic stretch reflexes and is manually assessed in clinical practice. However, the best method for the clinical assessment of spasticity has not been objectively described. This study analyzed the clinical procedure to assess spasticity of the elbow joint using an electrogoniometer and investigated the appropriate velocity required to elicit a spastic response and the influence of velocity on the kinematic response pattern.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
This study included eight healthy individuals and 15 patients with spasticity who scored 1 or 1+ on the modified Ashworth Scale (MAS). Examiners were instructed to manually assess spasticity twice at two different velocities (slow and fast velocity conditions). During the assessment, velocity, deceleration value, and angle [described as the % range of motion (%ROM)] at the moment of resistance were measured using an electrogoniometer. Differences between the slow and fast conditions were evaluated. In addition, variations among the fast condition such as the responses against passive elbow extension at <200, 200-300, 300-400, 400°/s velocities were compared between the MAS 1+, MAS 1, and control groups.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Significant differences were observed in the angular deceleration value and %ROM in the fast velocity condition (417 ± 80°/s) between patients and healthy individuals, but there was no difference in the slow velocity condition (103 ± 29°/s). In addition, the deceleration values were significantly different between the MAS 1 and MAS 1+ groups in velocity conditions faster than 300°/s. In contrast, the value of %ROM plateaued when the velocity was faster than 200°/s.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
The velocity of the passive motion had a significant effect on the response pattern of the elbow joint. The velocity-response pattern differed between deceleration and the angle at which the catch occurred; the value of deceleration value for passive motion was highly dependent on the velocity, while the %ROM was relatively stable above a certain velocity threshold. These results provide clues for accurate assessment of spasticity in clinical practice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35432169
doi: 10.3389/fneur.2022.854125
pmc: PMC9007406
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
854125Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Fujimura, Mukaino, Itoh, Miwa, Itoh, Narukawa, Tanikawa, Kanada, Saitoh and Otaka.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Phys Ther. 1987 Feb;67(2):206-7
pubmed: 3809245
J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng. 2020 Dec 04;7:2055668320929535
pubmed: 33329901
J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2017 Dec;37:84-89
pubmed: 28985544
Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2001 Nov;12(4):733-46
pubmed: 11723863
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2010 Jan;81(1):46-52
pubmed: 19770162
Practitioner. 1964 Apr;192:540-2
pubmed: 14143329
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011 Sep;25(7):617-25
pubmed: 21490269
Disabil Rehabil. 2006 Aug 15;28(15):899-907
pubmed: 16861197
NeuroRehabilitation. 2008;23(3):231-7
pubmed: 18560139
Clin Neurophysiol. 2019 Jun;130(6):1076-1077
pubmed: 30952436
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1979 Jul;61(5):756-9
pubmed: 457719
Clin Rehabil. 2005 Oct;19(7):751-9
pubmed: 16250194
Brain Inj. 2008 Dec;22(13-14):1007-12
pubmed: 19117179
Clin Rehabil. 2003 May;17(3):290-3
pubmed: 12735536
Ann Neurol. 1989 Jan;25(1):32-42
pubmed: 2913927
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999 Sep;80(9):1013-6
pubmed: 10489001
Phys Ther. 2002 Jan;82(1):25-34
pubmed: 11784275
Clin Neurophysiol. 2019 Apr;130(4):521-527
pubmed: 30776732
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2002 May;72(5):621-9
pubmed: 11971049
Physiother Theory Pract. 2006 Jun;22(3):119-25
pubmed: 16848350
PLoS One. 2014 Mar 20;9(3):e91759
pubmed: 24651860
Clin Rehabil. 1999 Oct;13(5):373-83
pubmed: 10498344
Clin Neurophysiol. 2008 Oct;119(10):2329-37
pubmed: 18762451