William Barry McKay1, William Mark Sweatman2,3, Edelle C Field-Fote2,4. 1. Shepherd Center, Crawford Research Institute, Atlanta, GA, USA. barry_mckay@shepherd.org. 2. Shepherd Center, Crawford Research Institute, Atlanta, GA, USA. 3. Georgia Gwinnett College, Lawrenceville, GA, USA. 4. Division of Physical Therapy, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. OBJECTIVES: Determine the impact of motor control characteristics attributed to spasticity, such as spasms, stiffness, and clonus on the daily life of people with spinal cord injury (SCI). SETTING: Nationwide, United States. METHODS: Internet-administered questionnaire, the Patient Reported Impact of Spasticity Measure (PRISM) and items describing characteristics of spasticity including stiffness, spasms, clonus, and pain. RESULTS: Of the 145 respondents, 113 (78%) reported a PRISM score of at least 5/164, indicating spasticity had some impact on their daily lives. Stiffness impact was highly correlated (ρ = 0.84; p < 0.01) with the PRISM negative impact on Daily Activities subscale and moderately correlated with the other PRISM subscales (ρ = 0.55-0.63; p < 0.01). Spasm presence had a negligible or low correlation with PRISM negative impact subscales (ρ = 0.29-0.47; p < 0.01). Trunk muscle stiffness and spasms had a low correlation with PRISM Need for Assistance and Daily activities (ρ = 0.42 and ρ = 0.41, p < 0.01, respectively). Anti-spasticity medications were ineffective for 58% of respondents. Pain in the legs was reported by 57% of respondents. CONCLUSIONS: The experience of spasticity is highly individualized, and is often distributed differently across arms, trunk, and legs. Despite the fact that traditional definitions of spasticity focus on reflex responsiveness, the stiffness associated with spasticity appears to be more problematic than spasms or clonus. The self-described characteristics of spasticity and its physiological presentation are complex and related to pain. This varied presentation lends support to the concept that management of spasticity may be best achieved by multimodality strategies.
STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. OBJECTIVES: Determine the impact of motor control characteristics attributed to spasticity, such as spasms, stiffness, and clonus on the daily life of people with spinal cord injury (SCI). SETTING: Nationwide, United States. METHODS: Internet-administered questionnaire, the Patient Reported Impact of Spasticity Measure (PRISM) and items describing characteristics of spasticity including stiffness, spasms, clonus, and pain. RESULTS: Of the 145 respondents, 113 (78%) reported a PRISM score of at least 5/164, indicating spasticity had some impact on their daily lives. Stiffness impact was highly correlated (ρ = 0.84; p < 0.01) with the PRISM negative impact on Daily Activities subscale and moderately correlated with the other PRISM subscales (ρ = 0.55-0.63; p < 0.01). Spasm presence had a negligible or low correlation with PRISM negative impact subscales (ρ = 0.29-0.47; p < 0.01). Trunk muscle stiffness and spasms had a low correlation with PRISM Need for Assistance and Daily activities (ρ = 0.42 and ρ = 0.41, p < 0.01, respectively). Anti-spasticity medications were ineffective for 58% of respondents. Pain in the legs was reported by 57% of respondents. CONCLUSIONS: The experience of spasticity is highly individualized, and is often distributed differently across arms, trunk, and legs. Despite the fact that traditional definitions of spasticity focus on reflex responsiveness, the stiffness associated with spasticity appears to be more problematic than spasms or clonus. The self-described characteristics of spasticity and its physiological presentation are complex and related to pain. This varied presentation lends support to the concept that management of spasticity may be best achieved by multimodality strategies.
Authors: Chester H Ho; Ronald J Triolo; Anastasia L Elias; Kevin L Kilgore; Anthony F DiMarco; Kath Bogie; Albert H Vette; Musa L Audu; Rudi Kobetic; Sarah R Chang; K Ming Chan; Sean Dukelow; Dennis J Bourbeau; Steven W Brose; Kenneth J Gustafson; Zelma H T Kiss; Vivian K Mushahwar Journal: Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 1.784
Authors: Eric R Theriault; Vincent Huang; Gale Whiteneck; Marcel P Dijkers; Noam Y Harel Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2016-11-14 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: Jane S Mahoney; Joan C Engebretson; Karon F Cook; Karen A Hart; Susan Robinson-Whelen; Arthur M Sherwood Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Kaila A Holtz; Rachel Lipson; Vanessa K Noonan; Brian K Kwon; Patricia B Mills Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2016-10-22 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Stephen Estes; Jennifer A Iddings; Somu Ray; Neva J Kirk-Sanchez; Edelle C Field-Fote Journal: Neurotherapeutics Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 7.620
Authors: Paulo Henrique Ferreira de Araujo Barbosa; Joanne V Glinsky; Emerson Fachin-Martins; Lisa A Harvey Journal: Spinal Cord Date: 2021-02-09 Impact factor: 2.772