| Literature DB >> 24824566 |
Daoud Makki1, J Duodu, Matthew Nixon.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and pattern of upper limb involvement in children with cerebral palsy (CP), how this relates to function and how well these problems are recognised and treated.Entities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24824566 PMCID: PMC4142879 DOI: 10.1007/s11832-014-0593-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Child Orthop ISSN: 1863-2521 Impact factor: 1.548
Patient demographics shown with age and anatomical pattern, along with physiological subgroups and the functional ability scores
| Demographic | Percentage | ABILHAND score (median logit) |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Male | 55 | −0.8 |
| Female | 45 | 0.9 |
| Mean age in years (range) | 10.3 (3–18) | 0.0 |
| <6 years | 23 | 0.0 |
| 6–12 years | 36 | 0.3 |
| >12 years | 41 | −1.0 |
| Anatomical/physiological types | ||
| Hemiplegia | 26 | 1.1 |
| Spastic | 20 | 2.1 |
| Dystonic/athetoid | 4 | −0.6* |
| Other | 2 | 0.0 |
| Diplegia | 31 | −0.1* |
| Spastic | 16 | 0.7 |
| Dystonic/athetoid | 12 | −1.2* |
| Other | 3 | 0.0 |
| Total body involvement | 43 | −5.0* |
| Spastic | 25 | −2.1* |
| Dystonic/athetoid | 8 | −4.7* |
| Other | 10 | 0.0 |
* Demonstrates significantly worse function (P < 0.05, Mann–Whitney U test)
Upper limb involvement shown with functional ability score
| Problem |
| ABILHAND score (median logit) |
|---|---|---|
| Upper limb involvement | ||
| Left | 20 | 1.2* |
| Right | 22 | −0.2* |
| Both | 41 | −5.1* |
| No upper limb involvement | 17 | 2.6b |
| GMFCS classificationa | ||
| 1 | 29 | 1.9 |
| 2 | 8 | 0.3 |
| 3 | 15 | 0.3 |
| 4 | 28 | −1.7 |
| 5 | 17 | −6.8 |
| Unknown | 3 | |
| MACS classificationa | ||
| Easy and successful object handling | 13 | 3.9 |
| Reduced speed and quality of handling | 33 | 1.2 |
| Difficulty handling, needs adaptations | 16 | −0.9 |
| Limited handling, despite adaptations | 19 | −2.9 |
| Severely limited, despite adaptations | 19 | −6.8 |
| Control of hand | ||
| Normal | 31 | 1.8 |
| Restricted | 60 | −1.2* |
| No active control | 9 | −6.8* |
* Demonstrates significantly worse function compared to unaffected patients (P < 0.05)
aBoth the GMFCS and the MACS scores were strongly correlated to the ABILHAND logit score
bGroup of patients with no upper limb involvement used as a control group
Fig. 1Different contractures are associated with different levels of disability (measured by the median ABILHAND logit scores)
Fig. 2Strong correlation between the MACS and ABILHAND logit scores (r = −0.82, P < 0.001)