da Costa Carolina Souza Neves, Saavedra Sandra L, Rocha Nelci Adriana Cicuto Ferreira, Woollacott Marjorie H
C.S.N. da Costa, PhD, Department of Physiotherapy, Neuropediatric Research Unit, Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar), São Paulo, Brazil.
S.L. Saavedra, PhD, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Hartford, 200 Bloomfield Ave, West Hartford, CT 06117 (USA).
Phys Ther. 2017 Mar;97(3):374-385. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20150418. Epub 2016 Oct 6.
External support has been viewed as an important biomechanical constraint for children with deficits in postural control. Nonlinear analysis of head stability may be helpful to confirm benefits of interaction between external trunk support and level of trunk control.
The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of biomechanical constraints (trunk support) on neural control of head stability during development of trunk control.
This was a quasi-experimental repeated-measures study.
Data from 15 children (4-16 years of age) with moderate (Gross Motor Function Classification System [GMFCS] IV; n=8 [4 boys, 4 girls]) or severe (GMFCS V; n=7 [4 boys, 3 girls]) cerebral palsy (CP) were compared with previous longitudinal data from infants with typical development (TD) (3-9 months of age). Kinematic data were used to document head sway with external support at 4 levels (axillae, midrib, waist, and hip). Complexity, predictability, and active degrees of freedom for both anterior-posterior and medial-lateral directions were assessed.
Irrespective of level of support, CP groups had lower complexity, increased predictability, and greater degrees of freedom. The effect of support differed based on the child's segmental level of control. The GMFCS V and youngest TD groups demonstrated better head control, with increased complexity and decreased predictability, with higher levels of support. The GMFCS IV group had the opposite effect, showing decreased predictability and increased complexity and degrees of freedom with lower levels of support.
Infants with typical development and children with CP were compared based on similar segmental levels of trunk control; however, it is acknowledged that the groups differed for age, cognitive level, and motor experience.
The effect of external support varied depending on the child's level of control and diagnostic status. Children with GMFCS V and young infants with TD had better outcomes with external support, but external support was not enough to completely correct for the influence of CP. Children with GMFCS IV performed worse, with increased predictability and decreased complexity, when support was at the axillae or midribs, suggesting that too much support can interfere with postural sway quality.
外部支撑被视为姿势控制存在缺陷的儿童的一种重要生物力学限制因素。头部稳定性的非线性分析可能有助于确认外部躯干支撑与躯干控制水平之间相互作用的益处。
本研究的目的是比较生物力学限制因素(躯干支撑)对躯干控制发育过程中头部稳定性神经控制的影响。
这是一项准实验性重复测量研究。
将15名患有中度(粗大运动功能分类系统[GMFCS]IV级;n = 8[4名男孩,4名女孩])或重度(GMFCS V级;n = 7[4名男孩,3名女孩])脑瘫(CP)的儿童(4 - 16岁)的数据与先前来自典型发育(TD)婴儿(3 - 9个月大)的纵向数据进行比较。运动学数据用于记录在4个支撑水平(腋窝、肋骨中部、腰部和髋部)下有外部支撑时的头部摆动情况。评估了前后方向和内外侧方向的复杂性、可预测性以及主动自由度。
无论支撑水平如何,CP组的复杂性较低、可预测性增加且自由度更大。支撑的效果因儿童的节段控制水平而异。GMFCS V级和最年幼的TD组在更高水平的支撑下表现出更好的头部控制,复杂性增加且可预测性降低。GMFCS IV组则有相反的效果,在较低水平的支撑下可预测性降低、复杂性和自由度增加。
基于相似的躯干节段控制水平对典型发育婴儿和CP儿童进行了比较;然而,公认这些组在年龄、认知水平和运动经验方面存在差异。
外部支撑的效果因儿童的控制水平和诊断状况而异。GMFCS V级儿童和TD组年幼婴儿在有外部支撑时效果更好,但外部支撑不足以完全纠正CP的影响。当支撑位于腋窝或肋骨中部时,GMFCS IV级儿童表现更差,可预测性增加且复杂性降低,这表明过多的支撑会干扰姿势摆动质量。