| Literature DB >> 29174477 |
Mutlu Cobanoglu1, Emre Cullu2, Imran Omurlu3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether the hip reconstruction has an effect on gross motor function classification system (GMFCS) levels in patients with hip instability in cerebral palsy (CP).Entities:
Keywords: Cerebral palsy; Classification system; Gross motor function; Hip reconstruction
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29174477 PMCID: PMC6136341 DOI: 10.1016/j.aott.2017.11.001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc ISSN: 1017-995X Impact factor: 1.511
Gross motor function classification system.
| Level I | Walks independently. Limitations in advanced gross motor abilities. |
| Level II | Walks without assistive devices. Experiences limitations when walking in public. Experiences difficulties when walking on uneven surfaces and in the crowd, and is unable to run or jump. |
| Level III | Walks with an assistive device (orthosis, walker, crutch). Limitations when walking in the crowd. Able to sit without support. |
| Level IV | Very limited ability to move independently, often carried by another in the public. Able to sit independently. |
| Level V | Have no means of independent mobility. Often unable to sit without support. |
Demographic data of the patients.
| Case no | Age | Sex | CP type | Preoperative GMFCS | End of follow up GMFCS | Complaints | MI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 12 | M | Quadriplegia | V | V | Improved | 100 |
| 2 | 10 | F | Diplegia | IV | IV | Improved | 44 |
| 2 | 42 | ||||||
| 3 | 13 | M | Diplegia | II | I | Improved | 33 |
| 3 | 22 | ||||||
| 4 | 10 | F | Diplegia | III | IV | Did not improve | 37 |
| 5 | 5 | M | Quadriplegia | V | IV | Improved | 55 |
| 5 | 80 | ||||||
| 6 | 10 | M | Quadriplegia | V | IV | Improved | 100 |
| 6 | 100 | ||||||
| 7 | 6 | F | Diplegia | III | 1 | Improved | 23 |
| 7 | 26 | ||||||
| 8 | 9 | F | Quadriplegia | IV | IV | Improved | 82 |
| 9 | 7 | M | Quadriplegia | V | IV | Did not improve | 75 |
| 9 | 92 | ||||||
| 10 | 6 | M | Hemiplegia | II | 1 | Improved | 22 |
| 11 | 9 | F | Quadriplegia | IV | IV | Improved | 35 |
| 11 | 31 | ||||||
| 12 | 8 | M | Quadriplegia | IV | V | Improved | 20 |
| 12 | 21 | ||||||
| 13 | 6 | F | Quadriplegia | IV | IV | Improved | 100 |
| 14 | 10 | M | Diplegia | IV | III | Improved | 34 |
| 14 | 34 | ||||||
| 15 | 6 | M | Diplegia | II | II | Improved | 31 |
| 15 | 25 | ||||||
| 16 | 9 | M | Diplegia | IV | III | Improved | 100 |
| 17 | 7 | F | Diplegia | II | II | Improved | 37 |
| 17 | 40 | ||||||
| 18 | 18 | M | Hemiplegia | I | I | Improved | 100 |
| 19 | 7 | F | Quadriplegia | V | V | Improved | 100 |
| 20 | 18 | M | Diplegia | III | III | Did not improve | 28 |
| 20 | 21 | ||||||
| 21 | 7 | F | Quadriplegia | V | V | Improved | 96 |
| 22 | 8 | F | Quadriplegia | V | V | Improved | 83 |
| 23 | 9 | F | Diplegia | III | III | Did not improve | 23 |
| 24 | 8 | F | Quadriplegia | V | V | Improved | 52 |
| 25 | 5 | M | Diplegia | III | III | Did not improve | 32 |
| 25 | 25 | ||||||
| 26 | 7 | M | Diplegia | IV | IV | Improved | 50 |
| 26 | 50 | ||||||
| 27 | 9 | F | Quadriplegia | V | V | Improved | 61 |
| 28 | 9 | M | Diplegia | IV | IV | Improved | 100 |
| 28 | 100 | ||||||
| 29 | 8 | M | Quadriplegia | V | V | Improved | 100 |
| 30 | 6 | F | Quadriplegia | V | V | Improved | 100 |
GMFCS: gross motor functional classification system; F: female; M: male; MI: migration index.
Left hips of the bilateral cases.
Distribution of GMFCS according to the complaints.
| Chief complaint during admission | GMFCS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Level I | Level II | Level III | Level IV | Level V | |
| Difficulty in sitting | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 |
| Difficulty in walking | 1 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 2 |
| Difficulty in perineal hygiene | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 7 |
| Pain | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
GMFCS: gross motor function classification system.