Identification of clinical and rehabilitation groups among patients with cervical tetraplegia

Cover Page


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord injury at the cervical level often leads to a severe neurological deficit, such as tetraplegia (International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury) and gross functional disorders. Currently, methods of differentiated rehabilitation strategy are developed, taking into account the needs of the patients.

AIMS: This study aimed to examine the clinical heterogeneity of patients with a cervical injury and to form appropriate clinical and rehabilitation groups based on common relevant rehabilitation goals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined 190 patients with severe cervical myelopathy C4–D1 level aged 18–60 years in whom changes in clinical and functional status were monitored for 5–7 years. The rehabilitation program was standardized and based on existing national clinical guidelines for physical rehabilitation in patients with spinal cord injuries.

RESULTS: The greatest changes were in patients with motor levels C6 and C7. Patients with cervical tetraplegia, according to the criterion of functional and motor homogeneity, can be divided into four clinical and rehabilitation groups: patients with a high level of damage to C4–C6 (functionally dependent), patients with a low level of damage to C7–D1 (functionally independent), patients with complete motor damage (types A and B), and patients with incomplete motor damage (types C and D).

CONCLUSIONS: The allocation of clinical and rehabilitation groups allows the prediction of the results and outcomes of rehabilitation. A timely rehabilitation prognosis can improve the quality of life of patients with cervical tetraplegia and their families and contribute to their timely adaptation to society.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Fedor A. Bushkov

Rehabilitation Center “Overcoming”

Email: bushkovfedor@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3001-0985
SPIN-code: 7593-3400

MD, Cand. Sci. (Med.)

Russian Federation, Moscow

Aleksandr N. Razumov

Moscow Centre for Research and Practice in Medical Rehabilitation, Restorative and Sports Medicine

Author for correspondence.
Email: razumov_a_n@staff.sechenov.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-5389-7235
SPIN-code: 8793-5173

MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Russian Federation, Moscow

Nino V. Sichinava

Moscow Centre for Research and Practice in Medical Rehabilitation, Restorative and Sports Medicine

Email: sichi.24@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7732-6020
SPIN-code: 2568-8150

MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Senior Research Associate

Russian Federation, Moscow

References

  1. ASIA and ISCoS International Standards Committee. The 2019 revision of the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI)-What’s new? Spinal Cord. 2019;57(10):815–817. doi: 10.1038/s41393-019-0350-9
  2. Management of patients with the consequences of spinal cord injury at the second and third stages of medical and medico-social rehabilitation. Clinical recommendations. Moscow; 2017. 326 р. (In Russ).
  3. Ditunno JF, Cohen ME, Hauck WW. Recovery of upper-extremity strength in complete and incomplete tetraplegia: a multicenter study. Arch Phys Med Rehab. 2000;81(4):389–393. doi: 10.1053/mr.2000.3779
  4. Ull C, Yilmaz E, Jansen O, et al. Spinal Cord Injury with tetraplegia in young persons after diving into shallow water: what has changed in the past 10 to 15 years? Global Spine J. 2021;11(8):1238–1247. doi: 10.1177/2192568220944124
  5. Mironov EM. Prerequisites for the rehabilitation treatment of patients with the consequences of spinal cord injury in the cervical region. Med Social Expertise Rehabilitation. 2005;(3):10–13. (In Russ).
  6. Morozov IN, Novikov AV, Rukina NN, Vorobyeva OV. Biomechanical assessment of motor disorders of the hand in patients with cervical spinal cord injury. Russ J Biomechanics. 2011;15(2):77–83. (In Russ).
  7. Bodrova RA, Gumerova LS. Modern technologies of physical rehabilitation of patients with spinal cord injury. Bulletin Restorative Med. 2014;(2):32–36. (In Russ).
  8. Schönherr MC, Groothoff JW, Mulder GA, Eisma WH. Functional outcome of patients with spinal cord injury: rehabilitation outcome study. Clin Rehabil. 1999;13(6): 457–463. doi: 10.1191/026921599666105472
  9. Jensen MP, Kuehn CM, Amtmann D, Cardenas DD. Symptom burden in persons with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88(5):638–645. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.02.002
  10. Sezer N, Akkuş S, Uğurlu FG. Chronic complications of spinal cord injury. World J Orthop. 2015;6(1):24–33. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v6.i1.24
  11. Furlan JC, Fehlings M. The impact of age on mortality, impairment and disability among adults with acute traumatic spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma. 2009;26(10):1707–1717. doi: 10.1089/neu.2009.0888
  12. Hitzig SL, Eng JJ, Miller WC, Sakakibara BM. An evidence-based review of aging of the body systems following spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2011;49(6):684–701. doi: 10.1038/sc.2010.178
  13. Geyh S, Nick E, Stirnimann D. Self-efficacy and self-esteem as predictors of participation in spinal cord injury--an ICF-based study. Spinal Cord. 2012;50(9):699–706. doi: 10.1038/sc.2012.18
  14. Anderson CJ, Krajci KA, Vogel L. Community integration among adults with spinal cord injuries sustained as children or adolescents. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2003;45(2):129–134.
  15. Koh GC, Chen CH, Petrella R, Thind A. Rehabilitation impact indices and their independent predictors: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2013;3(9):e003483. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003483
  16. Gupta S, Jaiswal A, Norman K, DePaul V. Heterogeneity and Its impact on rehabilitation outcomes and interventions for community reintegration in people with spinal cord injuries: an integrative review. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil. 2019;25(2):164–185. doi: 10.1310/sci2502-164
  17. Ginis KA, Van der Scheer JW, Latimer-Cheung AE. Evidence-based scientific exercise guidelines for adults with spinal cord injury: an update and a new guideline. Spinal Cord. 2018;56(4):308–321. doi: 10.1038/s41393-017-0017-3
  18. Hutchinson MJ, Goosey-Tolfrey VL. Rethinking aerobic exercise intensity prescription in adults with spinal cord injury: time to end the use of “moderate to vigorous” intensity? Spinal Cord. 2022;60(6):484–490. doi: 10.1038/s41393-021-00733-2
  19. Ditunno JF, Burns AS, Marino RJ. Neurological and functional capacity outcome measures: essential to spinal cord injury clinical trials. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005;42(3 Suppl 1):35–41. doi: 10.1682/jrrd.2004.08.0098
  20. Van Middendorp JJ, Hosman AJ, Donders AR, et al. EM-SCI Study Group A clinical prediction rule for ambulation outcomes after traumatic spinal cord injury: a longitudinal cohort study. Lancet. 2011;377(9770):1004–1010. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62276-3
  21. Jung HY, Lee J, Shin HI. The natural course of passive tenodesis grip in individuals with spinal cord injury with preserved wrist extension power but paralyzed fingers and thumbs. Spinal Cord. 2018;56(9):900–906. doi: 10.1038/s41393-018-0137-4
  22. Velstra IM, Bolliger M, Krebs J, et al. Predictive value of upper limb muscles and grasp patterns on functional outcome in cervical spinal cord injury. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2016;30(4):295–306. doi: 10.1177/1545968315593806
  23. Outcomes following traumatic spinal cord injury: clinical practice guidelines for health-care professionals. Consortium for Spinal Cord Medicine. J Spinal Cord Med. 2000;23(4):289–316. doi: 10.1080/10790268.2000.11753539
  24. Adams HH, Hicks AL. Spasticity after spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2005;43(10):577–586. doi: 10.1038/sj.sc.3101757

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download
2. Fig. 1. Dependence of functional status (FIMm and VLT) on motor level and completeness of spinal cord injury (Mn, 0.95% CI) d at the beginning of the observation period (Т1).

Download (352KB)
Indexing metadata
3. Fig. 2. Dependence of the functional status (FIM and VLT) on the motor level and completeness of the spinal cord injury (Mn; 0.95% CI) after the observation period (Т2).

Download (342KB)
Indexing metadata

Copyright (c) 2022 Eco-Vector


СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: серия ПИ № ФС 77 - 86505 от 11.12.2023 г. 
СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: серия ЭЛ № ФС 77 - 80654 от 15.03.2021 г.


This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies