| Literature DB >> 36188973 |
Ines Bersch1, Jörg Krebs1, Jan Fridén1.
Abstract
Upper extremity function is essential for the autonomy in patients with cervical spinal cord injuries and consequently a focus of the rehabilitation and treatment efforts. Routinely, an individualized treatment plan is proposed to the patient by an interprofessional team. It dichotomizes into a conservative and a surgical treatment pathway. To select an optimal pathway, it is important to define predictors that substantiate the treatment strategy. Apart from standard assessments (Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI), the manual muscle test (MRC), and lower motoneuron integrity of key actuators for hand function performed by motor point (MP) mapping might serve as a possible predictor. Type of damage (upper motor neuron (UMN) or lower motor neuron (LMN) lesion) influences hand posture and thus treatment strategy as positioning and splinting of fingers, hands, arms, and surgical reconstructive procedures (muscle-tendon or nerve transfers) in choice and timing of intervention. For this purpose, an analysis of a database comprising 220 patients with cervical spinal cord injury is used. It includes ISNCSCI, MRC, and MP mapping of defined muscles at selected time points after injury. The ordinal regression analysis performed indicates that MP and ASIA impairment scale (AIS) act as predictors of muscle strength acquisition. In accordance with the innervation status defined by MP, electrical stimulation (ES) is executed either via nerve or direct muscle stimulation as a supplementary therapy to the traditional occupational and physiotherapeutic treatment methods. Depending on the objective, ES is applied for motor learning, strengthening, or maintenance of muscle contractile properties. By employing ES, hand and arm function can be predicted by MP and AIS and used as the basis for providing an individualized treatment plan.Entities:
Keywords: electrical stimulation; motor points; outcome prediction; tetraplegia; upper extremities
Year: 2022 PMID: 36188973 PMCID: PMC9397669 DOI: 10.3389/fresc.2022.889577
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Rehabil Sci ISSN: 2673-6861
Distribution of the neurological level of injury and ASIA impairment scale for the patient cohort studied.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| C3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
| C4 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 11 |
| C5 | 9 | 6 | 4 | 9 |
| C6 | 8 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| C7 | - | - | 2 | 2 |
| C8 | 1 | - | - | 1 |
A = Complete: No motor or sensory function is preserved in the sacral segments S4–S5.
B = Incomplete: Sensory but not motor function is preserved below the neurological level and includes the sacral segments S4–S5.
C = Incomplete: Motor function is preserved below the neurological level, and more than half of key muscles below the neurological level have a muscle grade <3.
D = Incomplete: Motor function is preserved below the neurological level, and at least half of key muscles below the neurological level have a muscle grade of three or more.
NLI, neurological level of injury; AIS, ASIA impairment scale; C, cervical.
Results of ordinal regression analysis for flexor digitorum profundus.
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| MP innervated | <0.001 | 6.759 | 2.550 | 18.829 |
| MP partially | 0.24 | 2.052 | 0.612 | 6.833 |
| denervated | ||||
| MP denervated | Reference category | |||
| AIS A | Reference category | |||
| AIS B | 0.005 | 5.028 | 1.642 | 15.882 |
| AIS C | 0.027 | 3.622 | 1.169 | 11.561 |
| AIS D | <0.001 | 28.439 | 9.760 | 88.922 |
| NLI C2 | 0.12 | 0.085 | 0.002 | 1.585 |
| NLI C3 | 0.07 | 0.125 | 0.011 | 1.079 |
| NLI C4 | 0.04 | 0.118 | 0.013 | 0.847 |
| NLI C5 | 0.7 | 0.701 | 0.074 | 5.260 |
| NLI C6 | 0.4 | 0.379 | 0.038 | 2.990 |
| NLI C7 | Reference category | |||
| Age | 0.2 | 1.013 | 0.994 | 1.033 |
The MRC of the FDP was the dependent variable for the ordinal regression analysis. MP and AIS were significant predictors. Level of significance p ≤ 0.05.
MRC, manual muscle test based on the Medical Research Council Scale; FDP, flexor digitorum profundus; MP, motor point; AIS, ASIA impairment scale; NLI, neurological level of injury.
Results of ordinal regression analysis for the extensor digitorum communis.
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
| |
| MP innervated | 0.001 | 0.207 | 0.083 | 0.498 |
| MP partially | 0.068 | 0.324 | 0.093 | 1.071 |
| denervated | ||||
| MP denervated | Reference category | |||
| AIS A | Reference category | |||
| AIS B | 0.005 | 5.028 | 1.642 | 15.882 |
| AIS C | 0.027 | 3.622 | 1.169 | 11.561 |
| AIS D | <0.001 | 28.439 | 9.760 | 88.922 |
| NLI C2 | 0.21 | 0.128 | 0.003 | 2.652 |
| NLI C3 | 0.22 | 0.233 | 0.021 | 2.191 |
| NLI C4 | 0.24 | 0.273 | 0.028 | 2.178 |
| NLI C5 | 0.99 | 0.996 | 0.107 | 8.132 |
| NLI C6 | 0.93 | 0.900 | 0.087 | 8.104 |
| NLI C7 | Reference category | |||
| Age | 0.11 | 1.015 | 0.997 | 1.034 |
The MRC of the EDC was the dependent variable for the ordinal regression analysis. MP and AIS were significant predictors. Level of significance p ≤ 0.05.
EDC, extensor digitorum communis; MP, motor point; AIS, ASIA impairment scale; NLI, neurological level of injury.
Figure 1Innervation pattern of the brachioradialis muscle. GBS, Guillain–Barré Syndrome.
Figure 2Road map. The Y-axis represents the single motor point testing 4–8 weeks after injury and is divided into the categories denervated (bright blue), partially innervated (yellow), and innervated (blue), each for AIS A–D. X-axis denotes the expected outcome of voluntary motor function tested with the MRC 24 weeks after injury in relation to the motor point innervation pattern. A vertical white line in the center of the graph divides MRC into the two categories 0–2 and ≥3. The diagonals split the graph into upper and lower as well as right and left triangles. The upper and lower triangles represent FDP and the right and left triangles to represent EDC. Inset symbols suggest individualized interventions as early as 4–8 weeks after injury. MP, motor point; MRC, manual muscle test, British Medical Research Council Scale; FDP, flexor digitorum profundus; EDC, extensor digitorum communis; •, nerve transfer, ▴, long pulse stimulation, (LMN) lesion; ❖, functional electrical stimulation with task-specific exercise (motor learning); ⋆, splinting; *, strengthening with ES; ○, passive mobilization.
Presentation of four different innervation patterns and the corresponding treatment recommendation.
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MP | EDC denervated FDP denervated | EDC innervated | EDC denervated FDP innervated | EDC innervated |
| Clinical appearance |
|
|
|
|
| Treatment | Passive mobilization techniques to reduce risk of contracture due to denervation atrophy | Task-specific training with FES based on motor learning principles, | Passive mobilization techniques to reduce risk of contracture mainly on the EDC followed by ES of the wrist extensors | Passive mobilization techniques to reduce risk of claw hand |
| ES of denervated muscles to maintain contractile muscle tissue | Strengthening supported with ES of both EDC and FDP | Strengthening supported with ES mainly of the wrist extensors after successful mobilization of the EDC | ES of denervated flexors to maintain mobility of the MCP and PIP joints. | |
| Alternate positioning or splinting | Splinting not generally necessary | Splinting overnight if necessary | No splinting to avoid external stimulus applied on the muscle spindles, for example pressure or stretch on the muscle belly | |
| Evaluation of nerve transfer in a prompt timeframe | Information about reconstructive surgical procedures | Evaluation of reconstructive surgical procedures such as muscle-tendon or nerve transfers | Evaluation of reconstructive surgical procedures such as muscle-tendon or nerve transfers |
MP, motor point; EDC, extensor digitorum communis; FDP, flexor digitorum profundus, FES, functional electrical stimulation; ES, electrical stimulation; MCP, metacarpo-phalangeal joints; PIP, proximal interphalangeal joints.
Figure 3Splint to ensure the intrinsic plus position of the hand.