PURPOSE: To determine the prevalence and factors predictive of spasticity in stroke patients transferred to a Department of Rehabilitation Medicine and to assess spasticity effects on motor recovery and functional outcomes. METHODS: A total of 245 patients consecutively admitted to the Department of Rehabilitation Medicine were evaluated. We examined spasticity prevalence and factors predictive of the condition. Spasticity was evaluated by the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS). RESULTS: We found that 42.4% of stroke patients showed spasticity signs. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores, nonoperative treatment, and low Motricity Index scores were significantly predictive of spasticity after stroke. The total, motor, and cognitive FIMTM scores, and the FIMTM subscale scores assessed at admission, were similar in patients with and without spasticity. However, functional gains and eventual efficiency outcomes were greater for nonspastic patients. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of spasticity in stroke patients transferred to our Department of Rehabilitation Medicine was 42.4%. NIHSS scores, nonoperative treatment, and low Motricity Index scores were significantly predictive of spasticity. A nonspastic group showed greater functional improvement during rehabilitation.
PURPOSE: To determine the prevalence and factors predictive of spasticity in strokepatients transferred to a Department of Rehabilitation Medicine and to assess spasticity effects on motor recovery and functional outcomes. METHODS: A total of 245 patients consecutively admitted to the Department of Rehabilitation Medicine were evaluated. We examined spasticity prevalence and factors predictive of the condition. Spasticity was evaluated by the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS). RESULTS: We found that 42.4% of strokepatients showed spasticity signs. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores, nonoperative treatment, and low Motricity Index scores were significantly predictive of spasticity after stroke. The total, motor, and cognitive FIMTM scores, and the FIMTM subscale scores assessed at admission, were similar in patients with and without spasticity. However, functional gains and eventual efficiency outcomes were greater for nonspastic patients. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of spasticity in strokepatients transferred to our Department of Rehabilitation Medicine was 42.4%. NIHSS scores, nonoperative treatment, and low Motricity Index scores were significantly predictive of spasticity. A nonspastic group showed greater functional improvement during rehabilitation.
Authors: Rosa Cabanas-Valdés; Jordi Calvo-Sanz; Pol Serra-Llobet; Joana Alcoba-Kait; Vanessa González-Rueda; Pere Ramón Rodríguez-Rubio Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-21 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Luba Nalysnyk; Spyridon Papapetropoulos; Philip Rotella; Jason C Simeone; Katharine E Alter; Alberto Esquenazi Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2013-09-08 Impact factor: 2.474
Authors: Negin Hesam-Shariati; Terry Trinh; Angelica G Thompson-Butel; Christine T Shiner; Penelope A McNulty Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2017-07-28 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Carina U Persson; Lukas Holmegaard; Petra Redfors; Christina Jern; Christian Blomstrand; Katarina Jood Journal: Brain Behav Date: 2020-01-01 Impact factor: 2.708