Joanne M Wagner1, Theodore R Kremer2, Linda R Van Dillen3, Robert T Naismith4. 1. Program in Physical Therapy, Department of Physical Therapy and Athletic Training, Doisy College of Health Sciences, Saint Louis University, St Louis, MO. Electronic address: jwagne34@slu.edu. 2. School of Medicine, Saint Louis University, St Louis, MO. 3. Program in Physical Therapy, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO. 4. Department of Neurology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether plantarflexor (PF) spasticity or ankle strength best predicts variance in walking capacity or self-perceived limitations in walking in persons with multiple sclerosis (MS) and whether persons with MS with PF spasticity are weaker and have greater walking dysfunction than do persons with MS without PF spasticity. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: University research laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-two adults with MS (mean age, 42.9±10.1y; Expanded Disability Status Scale score, median=3.0, range=0-6) and 14 adults without disability (mean age, 41.9±10.1y). INTERVENTION: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: PF spasticity and dorsiflexion and PF maximum voluntary isometric torque were assessed using the modified Ashworth Scale and a computerized dynamometer, respectively. The Timed 25-Foot Walk Test was the primary outcome measure of walking capacity. Secondary measures included the 6-Minute Walk Test and the 12-item Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale. RESULTS: PF strength was the most consistent predictor of variance in walking capacity (Timed 25-Foot Walk Test: R(2) change=.23-.29, P≤.001; 6-Minute Walk Test: R(2) change=.12-.29, P≤.012), and self-perceived limitations of walking (12-item Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale: R(2) change=.04-.14, P<.18). There were no significant differences (P>.05) between persons with MS with PF spasticity and persons with MS without PF spasticity for any of the outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests a unique contribution of PF weakness to walking dysfunction in persons with MS, and highlights the importance of evaluating PF strength in this clinical population.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether plantarflexor (PF) spasticity or ankle strength best predicts variance in walking capacity or self-perceived limitations in walking in persons with multiple sclerosis (MS) and whether persons with MS with PF spasticity are weaker and have greater walking dysfunction than do persons with MS without PF spasticity. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: University research laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-two adults with MS (mean age, 42.9±10.1y; Expanded Disability Status Scale score, median=3.0, range=0-6) and 14 adults without disability (mean age, 41.9±10.1y). INTERVENTION: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: PF spasticity and dorsiflexion and PF maximum voluntary isometric torque were assessed using the modified Ashworth Scale and a computerized dynamometer, respectively. The Timed 25-Foot Walk Test was the primary outcome measure of walking capacity. Secondary measures included the 6-Minute Walk Test and the 12-item Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale. RESULTS:PF strength was the most consistent predictor of variance in walking capacity (Timed 25-Foot Walk Test: R(2) change=.23-.29, P≤.001; 6-Minute Walk Test: R(2) change=.12-.29, P≤.012), and self-perceived limitations of walking (12-item Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale: R(2) change=.04-.14, P<.18). There were no significant differences (P>.05) between persons with MS with PF spasticity and persons with MS without PF spasticity for any of the outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests a unique contribution of PF weakness to walking dysfunction in persons with MS, and highlights the importance of evaluating PF strength in this clinical population.
Authors: April Erwin; Mark Gudesblatt; Francois Bethoux; Susan E Bennett; Stephen Koelbel; Robert Plunkett; Saud Sadiq; Valerie L Stevenson; Ann-Marie Thomas; Carlo Tornatore; Mauro Zaffaroni; Mary Hughes Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2011-01-31 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: J C Hobart; A Riazi; A J Thompson; I M Styles; W Ingram; P J Vickery; M Warner; P J Fox; J P Zajicek Journal: Brain Date: 2005-11-09 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Chris H Polman; Stephen C Reingold; Brenda Banwell; Michel Clanet; Jeffrey A Cohen; Massimo Filippi; Kazuo Fujihara; Eva Havrdova; Michael Hutchinson; Ludwig Kappos; Fred D Lublin; Xavier Montalban; Paul O'Connor; Magnhild Sandberg-Wollheim; Alan J Thompson; Emmanuelle Waubant; Brian Weinshenker; Jerry S Wolinsky Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Awad M Almuklass; Leah Davis; Landon D Hamilton; Taian M Vieira; Alberto Botter; Roger M Enoka Journal: J Neurophysiol Date: 2018-01-03 Impact factor: 2.714
Authors: John H Kindred; Jetro J Tuulari; Marco Bucci; Kari K Kalliokoski; Thorsten Rudroff Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2015-02-18 Impact factor: 3.169
Authors: Grazia Maugeri; Velia D'Agata; Federico Roggio; Cristina Cortis; Andrea Fusco; Carl Foster; Mark M Mañago; Michael O Harris-Love; Veronica Vleck; Maria Francesca Piacentini; Giuseppe Musumeci Journal: J Funct Morphol Kinesiol Date: 2020-07-18