• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

创伤性脑损伤后下肢痉挛的分布不影响运动结果:一项观察性研究

Distribution of Lower Limb Spasticity Does Not Influence Mobility Outcome Following Traumatic Brain Injury: An Observational Study.

作者信息

Williams Gavin, Banky Megan, Olver John

机构信息

Physiotherapy Department, University of Melbourne, Australia (Dr Williams) and Physiotherapy Department-Rehabilitation, Epworth Hospital, Melbourne, Australia (Drs Williams and Olver and Ms Banky).

出版信息

J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2015 Sep-Oct;30(5):E49-57. doi: 10.1097/HTR.0000000000000094.

DOI:10.1097/HTR.0000000000000094
PMID:25310296
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between lower limb spasticity and mobility limitations following traumatic brain injury (TBI) and determine the influence of spasticity distribution on mobility outcomes following TBI.

SETTING

A large metropolitan rehabilitation hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Ninety-three ambulant people with TBI who were attending physiotherapy for mobility limitations.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional cohort study.

MAIN MEASURES

The High-Level Mobility Assessment Tool, gait velocity, and the Tardieu scale.

RESULTS

Lower limb spasticity was common following TBI, with a distal distribution being the most prevalent. Participants with spasticity had significantly greater initial mobility limitations than participants without spasticity. However, the distribution of lower limb spasticity and the presence of unilateral or bilateral spasticity had no additional impact on mobility outcomes. There was no significant difference in mobility outcomes at the 6-month follow-up for people with spasticity, indicating that individuals have equivalent ability to improve their mobility over time despite the presence of spasticity.

CONCLUSION

Following TBI, people with lower limb spasticity have significantly greater mobility limitations than those without spasticity, yet the presence and distribution of spasticity does not appear to impact mobility outcomes. There is long-term potential to improve mobility despite the presence of spasticity.

摘要

目的

研究创伤性脑损伤(TBI)后下肢痉挛与活动受限之间的关联,并确定痉挛分布对TBI后活动结果的影响。

设置

一家大型都市康复医院。

参与者

93名因活动受限而接受物理治疗的TBI步行患者。

设计

横断面队列研究。

主要测量指标

高级活动评估工具、步态速度和塔迪厄量表。

结果

TBI后下肢痉挛很常见,以远端分布最为普遍。有痉挛的参与者比没有痉挛的参与者初始活动受限明显更大。然而,下肢痉挛的分布以及单侧或双侧痉挛的存在对活动结果没有额外影响。痉挛患者在6个月随访时的活动结果没有显著差异,这表明尽管存在痉挛,个体随着时间推移改善活动能力的能力相当。

结论

TBI后,有下肢痉挛的人比没有痉挛的人活动受限明显更大,但痉挛的存在和分布似乎不会影响活动结果。尽管存在痉挛,仍有长期改善活动能力的潜力。

相似文献

1
Distribution of Lower Limb Spasticity Does Not Influence Mobility Outcome Following Traumatic Brain Injury: An Observational Study.创伤性脑损伤后下肢痉挛的分布不影响运动结果:一项观察性研究
J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2015 Sep-Oct;30(5):E49-57. doi: 10.1097/HTR.0000000000000094.
2
Ankle plantarflexor spasticity is not differentially disabling for those who are weak following traumatic brain injury.对于创伤性脑损伤后身体虚弱的人来说,踝关节跖屈肌痉挛并不会造成不同程度的功能障碍。
Brain Inj. 2017;31(2):193-198. doi: 10.1080/02699052.2016.1218548. Epub 2016 Nov 23.
3
Ankle Plantarflexor Spasticity Does Not Restrict the Recovery of Ankle Plantarflexor Strength or Ankle Power Generation for Push-Off During Walking Following Traumatic Brain Injury.踝关节跖屈肌痉挛并不限制创伤性脑损伤后步行蹬离期踝关节跖屈肌力量或踝关节发力的恢复。
J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2016 Jul-Aug;31(4):E52-8. doi: 10.1097/HTR.0000000000000166.
4
Mobility after traumatic brain injury: relationships with ankle joint power generation and motor skill level.创伤性脑损伤后的运动能力:与踝关节发力和运动技能水平的关系。
J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2013 Sep-Oct;28(5):371-8. doi: 10.1097/HTR.0b013e31824a1d40.
5
Severity and distribution of spasticity does not limit mobility or influence compensatory strategies following traumatic brain injury.创伤性脑损伤后,痉挛的严重程度和分布并不限制活动能力,也不影响代偿策略。
Brain Inj. 2015 Sep;29(10):1232-1238. doi: 10.3109/02699052.2015.1035328. Epub 2015 Jun 17.
6
Classification of gait disorders following traumatic brain injury.创伤性脑损伤后步态障碍的分类
J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2015 Mar-Apr;30(2):E13-23. doi: 10.1097/HTR.0000000000000038.
7
The distribution of positive work and power generation amongst the lower-limb joints during walking normalises following recovery from traumatic brain injury.创伤性脑损伤恢复后,行走过程中下肢关节间的正向功分布和能量产生会恢复正常。
Gait Posture. 2016 Jan;43:265-9. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2015.10.009. Epub 2015 Oct 20.
8
Impact of specific symptoms of spasticity on voluntary lower limb muscle function, gait and daily activities during subacute and chronic spinal cord injury.痉挛特定症状对亚急性和慢性脊髓损伤期间下肢随意肌功能、步态和日常活动的影响。
NeuroRehabilitation. 2013;33(4):531-43. doi: 10.3233/NRE-131000.
9
Self-selected walking speed predicts ability to run following traumatic brain injury.自我选择的步行速度可预测创伤性脑损伤后的跑步能力。
J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2013 Sep-Oct;28(5):379-85. doi: 10.1097/HTR.0b013e3182575f80.
10
Relationships among measures of balance, gait, and community integration in people with brain injury.脑损伤患者平衡、步态和社区融合测量指标之间的关系。
J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2014 Mar-Apr;29(2):117-24. doi: 10.1097/HTR.0b013e3182864f2f.

引用本文的文献

1
The Impact of Strength Changes on Active Function Following Botulinum Neurotoxin-A (BoNT-A): A Systematic Review.肉毒杆菌神经毒素A(BoNT-A)注射后力量变化对主动功能的影响:一项系统评价
Toxins (Basel). 2025 Jul 23;17(8):362. doi: 10.3390/toxins17080362.
2
Clinical spasticity assessment using the Modified Tardieu Scale does not reflect joint angular velocity or range of motion during walking: Assessment tool implications.临床痉挛评估采用改良 Tardieu 量表不能反映行走过程中的关节角速度或运动范围:评估工具的影响。
J Rehabil Med. 2021 Jan 1;53(1):jrm00137. doi: 10.2340/16501977-2777.
3
Interventions for managing skeletal muscle spasticity following traumatic brain injury.
创伤性脑损伤后骨骼肌痉挛的管理干预措施。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Nov 22;11(11):CD008929. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008929.pub2.
4
Baclofen in the Therapeutic of Sequele of Traumatic Brain Injury: Spasticity.巴氯芬在创伤性脑损伤后遗症治疗中的应用:痉挛
Clin Neuropharmacol. 2016 Nov/Dec;39(6):311-319. doi: 10.1097/WNF.0000000000000179.