Issue №2-22, 2023

Original article

https://doi.org/10.38025/2078-1962-2023-22-2-8-15

Heterogeneity of Functional Improvement in Patients with Spinal Tetraplegia: a Retrospective Observational Longitudinal Study

View article (Download PDF file)



Download XML file

1 ORCIDFedor A. Bushkov 2 ORCIDAleksander N. Razumov 2 ORCIDNino V. Sichinava

1АО «Rehabilitation Center «Preodolenie», Moscow, Russia
2 Moscow Centre for Research and Practice in Medical Rehabilitation, Restorative and Sports Medicine Rehabilitation, Moscow, Russia


ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION. The prevalence of severe spine and spinal cord injuries worldwide is increasing, while the structure and nature of recovery of lost functions remain poorly understood.
AIM. To study the variability of functional activities during continued rehabilitation to distinguish pure rehabilitation goals
MATERIAL AND METHODS. 190 patients with C4D1 tetraplegia 1860 years old whose were under clinical and functional follow up over a period for 57 years after spinal cord injury were examined. They were examed using the motor section of the FIM scale (FIMm), the VLT scale. The rehabilitation program was standardized and based on the National Clinical Guidelines for physical rehabilitation in spinal cord injured patients.
RESULTS. At admission, the age of the patients was 31 (24.0; 43.0) years, the proportion of patients with DU C4C6 was 117 (62 %), with complete damage types A and B was 134 (70 %) patients, men 151 (79 %). Functional improvement was 19 (12.0; 28.0) points on the VLT scale; 14 (5.0; 21.0) points on the FIMm scale over the entire observation period, and was predominantly noted in the first rehabilitation cycle. The proportion of patients completely independent increased on FIMm activities: eating by 25 %, dressing the upper body by 33 %, dressing the lower body by 20 %, self-care domain by +34 %, wheelchair transfer by 21 %, walking by 5 %, and the proportion of patients completely dependent decreased: eating by 9 %, upper dressing by 13 %, lower dressing by 12 %, self-care domain by 7 %, wheelchair transfer by 21 %, wheelchair mobility by 11 %, and walking by 4.5 %. Changes on the VLT scale domains were balance domain 14 %, 1 finger 18 %, hand 26 %, and manipulation 11 %. The gain in food intake activity (FIM) was higher in patients with DU C6C8 (4050 %) and incomplete motor damage (43 %), on the VLT scale domains similar to C6C8 (1218 %), and incomplete motor damage (20 %).
CONCLUSION. The most significant functional recovery occurred in self-care and transfer activities, as well as hand and pinch grasping.


KEYWORDS: spinal cord injury, rehabilitation, tetraplegia, activities of daily living, arm hand skilled performance.

Acknowledgments: The study had no sponsorship.

Conflict of interest:: The authors declare no apparent or potential conflicts of interest related to the publication of this article.

For citation: Bushkov F.A., Razumov A. N., Sichinava N.V. Heterogeneity of Functional Improvement in Patients with Spinal Tetraplegia: a Retrospective Observational Longitudinal Study. Bulletin of Rehabilitation Medicine. 2023; 22(2):8-15. https://doi.org/10.38025/2078-1962-2023-22-2-8-15 (In Russ.).

For correspondence: Fedor A. Bushkov, E-mail: bushkov@preo.ru, bushkovfedor@mail.ru; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3001-0985



References:

  1. National Spinal Cord Injury Statistical Center. Spinal Cord Injury: facts and figures at a glance. The Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine. 2014; 37(3): 355–6. https://doi.org/10.1179/1079026814Z.000000000260.
  2. Leont’ev M. A. Epidemiologiya spinal’noj travmy i chastota polnogo anatomicheskogo povrezhdeniya spinnogo mozga. Aktual’nye problemy reabilitacii invalidov. Novokuzneck. 2003: 37–38 (In Russ.).
  3. Morozov I. N., Mlyavyh S. G. Epidemiologiya pozvonochno-spinnomozgovoj travmy. Medicinskij Al’manah. 2011; 4 (17): 157–159 (In Russ.).
  4. National Spinal Cord Injury Statistical Center (SCISC). The 2008 annual statistical report for the spinal cord injury model systems.
  5. Marino R. J., Ditunno Jr. J.F., Donovan W. H., Maynard Jr. F. Neurologic recovery after traumatic spinal cord injury: data from the Model Spinal Cord Injury Systems. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 1999; 80(11): 1391–1396.
  6. Sharif S., Jazaib Ali M. Y. Outcome Prediction in Spinal Cord Injury: Myth or Reality. World Neurosurgery. 2020; (140): 574–590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2020.05.043.
  7. Van Middendorp J. J., Hosman A. J.F., Donders A. R.T., Pouw M. H., Ditunno Jr. J.F., Curt A., C H Geurts A. C.H., Van de Meent H., EM-SCI Study Group A clinical prediction rule for ambulation outcomes after traumatic spinal cord injury: a longitudinal cohort study. The Lancet. 2011; 377(9770): 1004–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62276-3.
  8. Velstra I. M., Bolliger M., Krebs J., Rietman J. S., Curt A. Predictive Value of Upper Limb Muscles and Grasp Patterns on Functional Outcome in Cervical Spinal Cord Injury. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair. 2016; 30(4): 295–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968315593806.
  9. Finnerup N. B. Neuropathic pain and spasticity: intricate consequences of spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2017; 55(12): 1046–1050. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2017.70.
  10. Diong J., Harvey L. A., Kwah L. K., Eyles J., Ling M. J., Ben M., Herbert R. D. Incidence and predictors of contracture after spinal cord injury — a prospective cohort study. Spinal Cord. 2012; 50(8): 579–84. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2012.25.
  11. Anderson K. D. Targeting recovery: priorities of the spinal cord-injured population. Journal of Neurotrauma. 2004; 21(10): 1371–83. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2004.21.1371.
  12. Simpson L. A., Eng J. J., Hsieh J. T.C, Wolfe D. W., Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation Evidence Scire Research Team The Health and Life Priorities of Individuals with Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review. Journal of Neurotrauma. 2012; 29(8): 1548–55. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2011.2226.
  13. Schönherr M. C., Groothoff J. W., Mulder G. A., Eisma W. H. Prediction of functional outcome after spinal cord injury: a task for the rehabilitation team and the patient. Spinal Cord. 2000; 38(3): 185–91. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.sc.3100965.
  14. Burns A. S., Ditunno J. F. Establishing prognosis and maximizing functional outcomes after spinal cord injury: a review of current and future directions in rehabilitation management. Spine. 2001; 26(24): 137–145. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200112151-00023.
  15. Bozzo A., Marcoux J., Radhakrishna M., Pelletier J., Goulet B. The role of magnetic resonance imaging in the management of acute spinal cord injury. Journal of Neurotrauma. 2011; 28(8): 1401–1411. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2009.1236.
  16. Donnelly C., Eng J. J., Hall J., Alford L., Giachino R., Norton K., Kerr D. S. Client-centred assessment and the identification of meaningful treatment goals for individuals with a spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2004; 42(5): 302–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.sc.3101589.
  17. Ginis K. A., Van der Scheer J. W., Latimer-Cheung A. E. Evidence-based scientific exercise guidelines for adults with spinal cord injury: an update and a new guideline. Spinal Cord. 2018; 56(4): 308–321. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-017-0017-3.
  18. Vedenie bol’nyh s posledstviyami pozvonochno-spinnomozgovoj travmy na vtorom i tret’em etapah medicinskoj i mediko-social’noj reabilitacii. Klinicheskie rekomendacii. Moscow. 2017: 326 p. (In Russ.).
  19. Mulcahey M. J., Hutchinson D., Kozin S. Assessment of upper limb in tetraplegia: considerations in evaluation and outcomes research. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development. 2007; 44(1): 91–102.
  20. Harvey L. A., Glinsky J. V., Chu J. Do any physiotherapy interventions increase spinal cord independence measure or functional independence measure scores in people with spinal cord injuries? A systematic review. Spinal Cord. 2021; 59(7): 705–715. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-021-00638-0.
  21. Post M. W.M., Van Lieshout G., Seelen H. A.M., Snoek G. J., Jzerman I.M, Pons C. Measurement properties of the short version of the Van Lieshout test (VLT-SF). Spinal Cord. 2006; 44(12): 763–71. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.sc.3101937.
  22. Daminov V. D., Zimina E. V., Uvarova O. A., Kuznecov A. N. Robotizirovannaya rekonstrukciya hod’by u bol’nyh v promezhutochnom periode pozvonochno-spinnomozgovoj travmy. Bulletin of Rehabilitatiom Medicine. 2009; 3(31): 62–64 (In Russ.).
  23. Bodrova R. A., Auhadeev E. I., YAkupov R.A., Zakamyrdina A. D. Effektivnost’ aktivnoj medicinskoj reabilitacii u pacientov s travmaticheskoj bolezn’yu spinnogo mozga. Doktor.ru. 2016; 12(129): 31–38 (In Russ.).



Creative Commons License
The content is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

©

Эта статья открытого доступа по лицензии CC BY 4.0. Издательство: ФГБУ «НМИЦ РК» Минздрава России.
This is an open article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by the National Medical Research Center for Rehabilitation and Balneology.