| Literature DB >> 25516151 |
Andrzej Szopa1, Małgorzata Domagalska-Szopa, Zenon Kidoń, Małgorzata Syczewska.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Development of a reliable and objective test of spasticity is important for assessment and treatment of children with cerebral palsy. The pendulum test has been reported to yield reliable measurements of spasticity and to be sensitive to variations in spasticity in these children. However, the relationship between the pendulum test scores and other objective measures of spasticity has not been studied. The present study aimed to assess the effectiveness of an accelerometer-based pendulum test as a measurement of spasticity in CP, and to explore the correlation between the measurements of this test and the global index of deviation from normal gait in in children with cerebral palsy.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25516151 PMCID: PMC4277843 DOI: 10.1186/1743-0003-11-166
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil ISSN: 1743-0003 Impact factor: 4.262
Figure 1Accelerometer placement and stabilisation for the dynamic assessment of the ROM (DAROM tests). T1 – deficit of hip extension in the Thomas test, T2 – pelvis elevation angle in the Duncan–Ely test, T3 – popliteal angle, T4 – deficit of knee extension and T5 – pendulum test.
Definitions of the outcome measures collected from the clinical measurements of spasticity
| Range of motion deficit (DROM) for DAROM tests: T1, T2, T3, T4 |
| Range of motion deficit following a slow velocity stretch (V1); expressed in degrees. |
|
| Range of motion deficit after a fast velocity stretch (V3); expressed in degrees. | |
|
| Value was calculated as the difference between the DROM II and DROM I; expressed in degrees. | |
| Outcome measures collected from the pendulum test: T5 |
| First swing excursion. Defined as the difference between the starting angle (the position at which the examiner released the participant’s heel) and the first angle of reversal of the swinging limb; expressed in degrees. |
|
| Relaxation index. Calculated as follows: (starting angle – first angle)/(starting angle – resting angle), where the resting angle was the knee joint position maintained after oscillatory movement had ceased; expressed in degrees. | |
|
| Damping ratio. Defined as the ratio of the logarithmic decrement (δ) to the period; expressed in sec. | |
|
| Defined as the natural log of the second to fourth peak amplitude ratio of the function φ (t). | |
|
| Duration of oscillations. Calculated as the duration of the pendulum swings (in seconds) from the time of lower limb release to the end of the final oscillation; expressed in sec. | |
|
| Determined by counting the number of sinusoidal waves produced by the swinging limb after the heel was released. The criterion for each oscillation was a flexion and extension wave with a minimum displacement toward the extension of a minimum of 3 degrees; number of oscillations. |
Figure 2Analysis of variance results. Differences between accelerometer–based pendulum test variables: A) First swing excursion; B) Relaxation Index; C) Beta; D) Lambda; E) Duration of oscillations; F) Number of oscillations, within each type of lower limb: right and left lower limbs of controls (Ref), unaffected and affected lower limbs of children with spastic hemiplegia (SH) and bilateral affected lower limbs of children with spastic diplegia (SD).
Correlations between the biomechanical parameters and the outcome measures from the pendulum test
| Groups | SH + SD | SH | SH unaffected | SH affected | SD | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameters | Ex | RI | Ex | RI | Ex | RI | Ex | RI | Ex | RI | |
| T 1 | DROM I | - | - | - | - | - | 0.48* | - | - | - | - |
| DROM II | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| ASO | -0.45*** | -0.38*** | -0.67*** | -0.52*** | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| T 2 | DROM I | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| DROM II | -0.25* | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0.34* | |
| ASO | -0.35** | -0.22* | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| T 3 | DROM I | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| DROM II | -0.60*** | -0.51*** | -0.71*** | -0.76*** | 0.49* | - | - | -0.53* | - | - | |
| ASO | -0.35** | -0.28* | -0.66*** | -0.71*** | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| T 4 | DROM I | - | - | -0.34* | -0.35* | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| DROM II | - | - | -0.58*** | -0.42** | - | 0.59** | - | - | - | - | |
| ASO | - | - | -0.48** | -0.36* | - | 0.56** | - | - | - | - | |
SH, spastic hemiplegia; SD, spastic diplegia; Ex, first swing excursion; RI, relaxation index; DAROM tests, (T1, T2, T3, T4); DROM I, range of motion deficit following a slow velocity; DROM II, range of motion deficit following a fast velocity; ASO, angle of spasticity; *, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01; ***, p < 0.001.
Figure 3Effect of the lower limb involvement level on the GGI.
Correlations between the pendulum test scores and the GGI values
| Test | Parameters | rs | p–value |
|---|---|---|---|
| T5 | GGI & Ex | -0.316 |
|
| GGI & RI | -0.173 | 0.146 | |
| GGI & β | 0.002 | 0.984 | |
| GGI & λ | 0.133 | 0.265 | |
| GGI & t | -0.013 | 0.916 | |
| GGI & n | -0.014 | 0.909 |
T5, pendulum test; GGI, Gillette Gait Index; Ex, first swing excursion; RI, relaxation index; β, damping ratio; λ, logarithmic decrement; t, duration of oscillations; n, number of oscillations; rs, Spearman’s rank correlation; p–value, statistical significance. Significant correlations between clinical and GGI scores are indicated in bold.