Crawford Research Institute, Shepherd Center, Atlanta, GA; Division of Physical Therapy, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA; Program in Applied Physiology, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.
Crawford Research Institute, Shepherd Center, Atlanta, GA.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2022 Apr;103(4):764-772.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2021.03.040. Epub 2021 May 17.
To characterize the qualities that individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) associate with their experience of spasticity and to describe the relationship between spasticity and perceived quality of life and the perceived value of spasticity management approaches.
Online cross-sectional survey.
Multicenter collaboration among 6 Spinal Cord Injury Model Systems hospitals in the United States.
Individuals with SCI (N=1076).
Not applicable.
Qualities of Spasticity Questionnaire, modified Spinal Cord Injury-Spasticity Evaluation Tool (mSCI-SET), and the modified Patient-Reported Impact of Spasticity Measure (mPRISM).
Respondents indicated that spasms most often occurred in response to movement-related triggering events. However, spontaneous spasms (ie, no triggering event) were also reported to be among the most common types. Frequency of spasms appears to decline with age. The highest frequency of spasms was reported by 56% of respondents aged <25 years and by only 28% of those >55 years. Stiffness associated with spasticity was reported to be more common than spasms (legs, 65% vs 54%; trunk, 33% vs 18%; arms, 26% vs 15%). Respondents reported negative effects of spasticity more commonly than positive effects. Based on their association with negative scores on the mSCI-SET and the mPRISM, the 5 most problematic experiences reported were stiffness all day, interference with sleep, painful spasms, perceived link between spasticity and pain, and intensification of pain before a spasm. Respondents indicated spasticity was improved more by stretching (48%) and exercise (45%) than by antispasmodics (38%).
The experience of spasticity after SCI is complex and multidimensional, with consequences that affect mobility, sleep, comfort, and quality of life. Stiffness, rather than spasms, appears to be the most problematic characteristic of spasticity. Physical therapeutic interventions to treat spasticity warrant in-depth investigation.
描述脊髓损伤(SCI)患者对痉挛的体验,并探讨痉挛与生活质量感知和痉挛管理方法的感知价值之间的关系。
在线横断面调查。
美国 6 个脊髓损伤模型系统医院的多中心合作。
脊髓损伤患者(n=1076)。
无。
痉挛特性问卷、改良脊髓损伤痉挛评估工具(mSCI-SET)和改良患者报告的痉挛影响量表(mPRISM)。
调查对象表示痉挛最常发生在与运动相关的触发事件后。然而,也有报告称自发性痉挛(即无触发事件)也很常见。痉挛频率似乎随年龄增长而降低。<25 岁的受访者中,56%报告痉挛频率最高,而>55 岁的受访者中只有 28%报告痉挛频率最高。与痉挛相关的僵硬比痉挛更常见(腿部,65%比 54%;躯干,33%比 18%;手臂,26%比 15%)。与负面评分相关的报告比积极影响更常见。基于与 mSCI-SET 和 mPRISM 的负面评分的关联,报告的 5 种最常见的问题体验是整天僵硬、睡眠干扰、疼痛性痉挛、痉挛与疼痛之间的感知联系,以及痉挛前疼痛加剧。受访者表示,拉伸(48%)和运动(45%)比抗痉挛药(38%)更能改善痉挛。
SCI 后痉挛的体验是复杂的、多维度的,对移动性、睡眠、舒适度和生活质量有影响。僵硬而不是痉挛似乎是痉挛最成问题的特征。治疗痉挛的物理治疗干预措施值得深入研究。