McKay William Barry, Sweatman William Mark, Field-Fote Edelle C
Shepherd Center, Crawford Research Institute, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Georgia Gwinnett College, Lawrenceville, GA, USA.
Spinal Cord. 2018 May;56(5):478-486. doi: 10.1038/s41393-017-0038-y. Epub 2018 Jan 16.
Cross-sectional survey.
Determine the impact of motor control characteristics attributed to spasticity, such as spasms, stiffness, and clonus on the daily life of people with spinal cord injury (SCI).
Nationwide, United States.
Internet-administered questionnaire, the Patient Reported Impact of Spasticity Measure (PRISM) and items describing characteristics of spasticity including stiffness, spasms, clonus, and pain.
Of the 145 respondents, 113 (78%) reported a PRISM score of at least 5/164, indicating spasticity had some impact on their daily lives. Stiffness impact was highly correlated (ρ = 0.84; p < 0.01) with the PRISM negative impact on Daily Activities subscale and moderately correlated with the other PRISM subscales (ρ = 0.55-0.63; p < 0.01). Spasm presence had a negligible or low correlation with PRISM negative impact subscales (ρ = 0.29-0.47; p < 0.01). Trunk muscle stiffness and spasms had a low correlation with PRISM Need for Assistance and Daily activities (ρ = 0.42 and ρ = 0.41, p < 0.01, respectively). Anti-spasticity medications were ineffective for 58% of respondents. Pain in the legs was reported by 57% of respondents.
The experience of spasticity is highly individualized, and is often distributed differently across arms, trunk, and legs. Despite the fact that traditional definitions of spasticity focus on reflex responsiveness, the stiffness associated with spasticity appears to be more problematic than spasms or clonus. The self-described characteristics of spasticity and its physiological presentation are complex and related to pain. This varied presentation lends support to the concept that management of spasticity may be best achieved by multimodality strategies.
横断面调查。
确定归因于痉挛的运动控制特征,如痉挛、僵硬和阵挛对脊髓损伤(SCI)患者日常生活的影响。
美国全国范围。
通过互联网发放问卷,即患者报告的痉挛影响测量量表(PRISM)以及描述痉挛特征的项目,包括僵硬、痉挛、阵挛和疼痛。
在145名受访者中,113人(78%)报告PRISM评分至少为5/164,表明痉挛对他们的日常生活有一定影响。僵硬影响与PRISM对日常活动子量表的负面影响高度相关(ρ = 0.84;p < 0.01),与其他PRISM子量表中度相关(ρ = 0.55 - 0.63;p < 0.01)。痉挛的存在与PRISM负面影响子量表的相关性可忽略不计或较低(ρ = 0.29 - 0.47;p < 0.01)。躯干肌肉僵硬和痉挛与PRISM对协助的需求和日常活动的相关性较低(分别为ρ = 0.42和ρ = 0.41,p < 0.01)。58%的受访者表示抗痉挛药物无效。57%的受访者报告腿部疼痛。
痉挛的体验具有高度个体差异性,且在手臂、躯干和腿部的分布通常有所不同。尽管痉挛的传统定义侧重于反射反应性,但与痉挛相关的僵硬似乎比痉挛或阵挛更成问题。自我描述的痉挛特征及其生理表现复杂且与疼痛相关。这种多样的表现支持了通过多模式策略可能最好地实现痉挛管理的观点。