| Literature DB >> 36072267 |
Vincent Shieh1, Cris Zampieri1, Paul Stout1, Galen O Joe1, Angela Kokkinis2, Kenneth H Fischbeck2, Christopher Grunseich2, Joseph A Shrader1.
Abstract
Objective: Spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy is characterized by slow-progressive muscle weakness, decreased functional performance and falls. Research into the use of exercise in spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy has shown equivocal to negative results, although authors suggest that patients with spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy may benefit from both increased exercise intensity and shorter bout duration. The aim of this case report is to explore the safety of a moderate intensity strength training programme coupled with dynamic balance and function-specific training in a patient with spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy. Case report: A 56-year-old man with spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy presented with multiple falls and declining performance in physical, vocational, and recreational activities. Examination revealed several musculoskeletal impairments that were sub-clinical to mild compared with an SBMA natural history cohort. Intervention and outcome: A 15-week moderate intensity exercise programme combining weight-lifting and functional exercises was performed under clinical supervision. Exercise volume, frequency and intensity were adjusted based on patient-reported outcomes and muscle damage blood markers. Performance-based and self-reported functional improvements occurred that exceeded the minimal clinically important difference. The intervention was well tolerated and the patient nearly doubled his baseline 10-repetition maximums for weight-lifting exercises.Entities:
Keywords: motor neurone disease; neuromuscular disease; spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy; weight lifting
Year: 2022 PMID: 36072267 PMCID: PMC9422881 DOI: 10.2340/jrmcc.v5.2513
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Rehabil Med Clin Commun ISSN: 2003-0711
Quantitative muscle assessment (QMA) strength measurements. The patient’s strength values are presented as a ratio (actual/predicted) using normative maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) databases of healthy men considering age, height, and weight. Initial and follow-up measurements were taken at baseline prior to training and 16 weeks later. The change in MVIC is presented in kg for improved interpretation.
| Muscles | Left | Right | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial (%) | Follow-up (%) | ΔMVIC (kg) | Initial (%) | Follow-up (%) | ΔMVIC (kg) | |
| Grip | 85 | 82 | –1.2 | 93 | 92 | –0.4 |
| Shoulder abduction | 75 | 66 | –2.1 | 72 | 65 | –1.7 |
| Elbow flexion | 101 | 97 | –1.0 | 89 | 87 | –0.6 |
| Ankle dorsiflexion | 36 | 40 | 1.2 | 88 | 78 | –2.6 |
| Ankle plantarflexion | 58 | 93 | 14.2 | 62 | 106 | 17.7 |
| Knee extension | 114 | 93 | –10.0 | 108 | 113 | 2.3 |
| Hip extension | 75 | 73 | –1.7 | 88 | 113 | 19.7 |
Baseline and follow-up outcomes at 16 weeks for functional performance. The Fatigue Severity Scale and Disability of Arms, Shoulders, and Hands are both self-reported tools where higher scores correlate with functional impairment and warrant further clinical investigation. The Lower Extremity Functional Scale and Patient Specific functional Scale are both self-reported tools where lower scores correlate with functional impairment and warrant further clinical investigation. The 30-s Sit-to-Stand is a functional performance examination whose range of results is dependent on physical capacity.
| Functional Reports | Range | Baseline | Follow-up | MCID |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fatigue Severity Scale | 9-63 | 28 | 9 | - |
| 30-s Sit-to-Stand (repeats) | – | 10 | 15 | 2 |
| Lower Extremity Functional Scale | 0–80 | 52 | 67 | 9 |
| Patient-Specific Functional Scale | ||||
| 2 flights of steps | 0–10 | 5 | 9 | 3 |
| Raking yard | 0–10 | 5 | 9 | 3 |
| Using screwdriver above head | 0–10 | 8 | 8 | 3 |
| Disability of Arms, Shoulders, and Hands | 0–100 | 19 | 11 | 10 |
MCID: minimal clinically important difference.
Fig. 1NeuroCom report of the modified Clinical Test of Sensory Interaction in Balance (mCTSIB) test at baseline (A and C) and follow-up (B and D) evaluations. In this test the patient is required to stand still on firm surface with eyes open (Firm EO), firm surface with eyes closed (Firm EC), foam surface with eyes open (Foam EO) and foam surface with eyes closed (Foam EC). Three trials of 10 s are performed per condition. Green bars on plots A and B represent the mean centre of gravity (COG) sway velocity of the 3 trials per condition. Grey represents the abnormal area. Notice how this patient dramatically decreased his sway velocity on the Foam EC condition from baseline to follow-up (oval circle). The bottom plots (C and D) show a coordinate system denoting the preferred alignment of the patient’s COG during each trial for each condition. The centre circle delimits perfect COG alignment. During testing, the patient is instructed to look straight ahead at a fixation point and receive no feedback about their COG position, so they are unaware of their alignment. The patient achieved a more centred COG preferred alignment at follow-up.
Fig. 2NeuroCom report of the limits of stability (LOS) test at baseline (A and C) and follow-up (B and D) evaluations. In this test the patient is required to purposefully lean his body toward targets displayed in 8 directions. These targets represent 100% of his theoretical limits of stability. During the leaning task, the patient must maintain a straight posture, only moving at the ankle, like an inverted pendulum. He received visual feedback about the movement of his centre of gravity (COG). Red and yellow bars on plots A and B represent abnormal endpoint and maximum excursions, respectively. Endpoint excursion is how far the patient moves his COG at the initial motion, and maximum excursion is how far the patient moves his COG during the entire 8-s trial. Green bars represent normal excursions. Grey shading represents abnormal excursions that are 2 standard deviations (SD) from normative mean values. Notice how this patient dramatically increased excursions in the backward direction from baseline to follow-up (oval circle). The bottom plots (C and D) show this patient’s COG tracings during the leaning task. During testing, the patient starts in the centre box and leans toward each target in a clockwise manner, starting with target 1. The patient achieved further excursions toward targets 4, 5 and 6, which compose the backward direction, at follow-up.
Timeline of the patient’s medical history and progression of weight-training
| History | Description |
|---|---|
| 7 years earlier | Decompressive spine surgery at left L5 nerve root to alleviate left foot drop. |
| 2 years earlier | SBMA diagnosis confirmed by muscle biopsy. A left light-weight ankle foot orthosis was fitted to the patient for long distance walking, due to residual anterior ankle weakness. |
| 1 year earlier | Depression diagnosis was made and medication was prescribed. |
| 2 months earlier | Initial systems review and examination was performed by a neurologist and jointly by a physiatrist and physical therapist. |
| 1 month earlier | Static balance tests (NeuroCom), muscle endurance test (30-s Sit-to-Stand) and self-reported functional scales (LEFS, DASH, PSFS, FSS). |
| 1 week earlier | A preliminary supervised training session determined 10RM and other intensities for prescribed weight training and exercise tasks. Initial use of safety/adverse response checklist. |
|
| |
| Treatment week | Description |
|
| |
| 1–3 | Training initiated: |
| ○ 1 set × 10 repetitions per session | |
| ○ 2 non-consecutive days per week | |
| 4–6 | Exercise volume increased: |
| ○ 2 sets × 10 repetitions per session | |
| ○ 2 non-consecutive days per week | |
| ○ Patient reported minimal difficulty with 1 set per session and minimal soreness | |
| 7 | Exercise frequency increased: |
| ○ 3 non-consecutive days per week | |
| ○ 2 sets × 10 repetitions per session continues | |
| ○ Added single-limb balance exercise (30 s) | |
| 8 | Exercise load increased: |
| ○ Increased by 10 kg for all global gym exercises, except knee extensions | |
| ○ Increased by 5 kg for all free-weight exercises | |
| ○ Increased hold time for body-weight planks and single leg balance from 30 to 45 s. | |
| 9 | ○ Unsupervised weekly sessions were skipped due to reported muscle soreness resulting from a family camping activity. |
| 10 | ○ All training sessions were skipped while the patient attended a mandatory work-related physical training. |
| 11 | 2nd exercise load increase: |
| ○ Increased by 10 kg for global gym knee extension. | |
| 12–14 | 3rd exercise load increase: |
| ○ Increased by 10 kg for all global gym exercises including knee extension | |
| ○ Increased by 5 kg for all free-weight exercises | |
| ○ Increased hold time for planks and single-leg balance from 45 to 60 s | |
| ○ Added 20 kg free-weights (10 kg in each hand) to standing squats | |
| Patient reports excellent programme tolerance and low muscle soreness | |
| 15 | Final exercise load increase: |
| ○ Increased by 10 kg for all global gym exercises including knee extension. | |
| 16 | ○ Patient meets with neurologist, physiatrist, and physical therapists for post-intervention follow-up. All examinations and self-reported functional scales were completed. |
DASH: Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand; FSS: Fatigue Severity Scale; LEFS: Lower Extremity Functional Scale; PSFS: Patient-Specific Functional Scale.