Influence of Lower Extremity Impairment and Trunk Control on Postural Control and Functional Mobility in Children with Spastic Cerebral Palsy

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2088670/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Influence of Lower Extremity Impairment and Trunk Control on Postural Control and Functional Mobility in Children with Spastic Cerebral Palsy

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2088670/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Purpose

To determine influence of lower extremity impairment and trunk control on postural control and functional mobility in children with spastic Cerebral Palsy (CP).

Methods

25 children with between the ages of 6–17 were evaluated. Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM) E Section, Modified Timed Up and Go Test (TUG), Trunk Impairment Scale (TIS), Computerized Dynamic Posturography, Sensory Organization Test (SOT) were applied; lower limb’s range of movement (ROM) of joints were evaluated passively to all participants. Spasticity levels of lower limbs were evaluated.

Results

In children with CP, there were significant relationship between spasticity, ROM and trunk control and motor function capacity and composite balance score (p < 0,05). Impairments of the lower extremity in children with CP were related with balance responses (p < 0,05). (p < 0,05). TUG, and composite balance score tests were correlated with all sub-dimensions of TIS (p < 0,05). the results of univariate and multivariate regression analyses and TIS total were found to be independent risk factor of TUG and GMFM-E according to the univariate analyses (ß=-0.77, B:0.353 standard error: 0.061, p < 0.01; ß=0.809, B:3.806 standard error: 0.578 p < 0.045 respectively). According to the multivariate regression analyses, TIS dynamic, SOM and VEST were found predictors of mTUG, and ROM, TIS dynamic and coordination, VIS were found predictors of GMFM-E (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Lower limb impairment and trunk control plays important role on postural control and functional mobility, therefore it is important including these parameters into the physiotherapy and rehabilitation aiming to improve functional mobility.

Cerebral Palsy

Computerized Dynamic Posturography

Balance Disorders

Postural Control

Cerebral palsy (CP) is a neurodevelopmental condition caused by a non-progressive brain lesion occurs before, during, or shortly after birth resulted with posture and activity disturbance [1]. According to the population based observational studies, spastic type is the most common clinical type and nearly 80% of total CP population is classified as spastic type [2, 3].

Although the primary injury in CP is not progressive; together with muscle tone, postural disorders and movement deficiency, the functional deficiencies and severity of disability are progressive and the main problems [1, 4]. Among these problems, children with CP usually show weak postural control (PC) [5], which can briefly define as the ability to control the body in relation to the person’s base of support for maintenance of stability and orientation [6]. PC is a complex skill based on interaction between dynamic sensory-motor process [7]; motor processes including neuromuscular synergy responses, the sensory structure including the visual, vestibular and somatosensory systems [8]. Because of this complex interaction maintaining a stable posture, even during daily functional activities, is challenging [7]. Impairments on PC in children CP during static and dynamic activities are resulted by sensory deficits, musculoskeletal problems including decreasing joint range of motion (ROM), impaired muscle and biomechanical misalignment adversely affecting their performance of daily activities [9, 10]. In spastic CP, abnormal motor patterns and postural reaction, deficiencies in adjustment and balance reaction cause PC problems and with abnormal tone, affect physical development of the child negatively [11]. This dysfunction provokes limitations in motor skills that require balance, such as walking, and results in participation limitation in a wide range of daily living aspects including self-care, education, entertainment and social relationships [11]. Therefore, improvement of PC is one of the main goals in physical therapy interventions [9, 12] that being so, investigation of movement and PC objectively and revealing any pathology clearly is important to determine the appropriate treatment methods in CP and to understand the effectiveness of these methods. Evaluation of PC responses that play an important place in continuation of the daily living activities of children with CP with objective data and ensuring better understanding of PC mechanisms and synergies can provide clinical support to physiotherapy and rehabilitation interventions [8].

Considering the role of PC in the performance of motor skills and in the adaptation of an individual to changing environmental demands, it is important to understand how these factors interact in the CP population [7] as a consequence, the aims of this study were to reveal the influence of lower extremity impairment and trunk control on PC, balance and functional mobility in children with spastic CP and to investigate what factors cause the PC problems in children with spastic CP. We hypothesized that, there are relationships exist between PC, functional mobility capacity and lower extremity impairment.

This study was designed as a cross-sectional study and ethical approval was obtained from the Hacettepe University ethical committee (Decision no: HEK11/105) according to principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, and the parents of participant children gave written informed consent to participate.

Participants

Children with spastic CP aged 6–16 years were included in the study. Study size was identified as 20 children with CP after power analysis, 31 children included at the beginning, 4 of the children did not complete posturographic evaluation because of difficulty, 2 of them had been applied Botulinum-toxin injection and excluded from study. Finally, 25 children with spastic CP were completed the study. Inclusion criteria were: diagnosis of spastic CP, able to walk independently without any orthotics; not having cognitive impairment; not having vision problems and hearing loss. Children who underwent Botulinum toxin injections and/or surgical intervention for the musculoskeletal system in the past year, who were using any medication were excluded from study. None of participant was undergone to the posturographic study before. Demographic characteristics of children, including gender, height, weight was recorded. Children classified according to the Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS). The characteristics of children with CP presented in Table 1.

Table 1

Characteristics of children with CP
Characteristics (n = 25)
Age (year) Mean ± SD		9.64 ± 4.73
Gender	Girl (n)	13 (52%)
Gender	Boy (n)	12 (48%)
GMFCS	Level I	13 (52%)
GMFCS	Level II	12 (48%)
Height (cm) Mean ± SD		128.16 ± 23.64
Weight (kg) X ± SD		31.12 ± 15.93
GMFCS: Gross Motor Function Classification System n: number, SD: standard deviation,

Posturographic Evaluation

Postural stability of participants was measured by Computerized Dynamic Posturography (CDP) (NeuroCom International, Inc., Clackamas, OR, USA), Smart Balance Master which has visual biofeedback on either a stable or unstable support surface and visual environment is used for assessment. With this technique, individual’s ability of use visual, vestibular, and somatosensory information can be evaluated. Smart Balance Master assesses a dynamic force plate with rotation capabilities to quantify the vertical forces exerted through the patient’s feet to measure center of gravity (COG) position and PC; and a dynamic visual surround to measure the patient’s use of visual information to maintain balance [13].

The Sensory Organization Test (SOT) protocol assesses postural balance abilities under six conditions in which visual, sensory, and proprioceptive inputs vary. During the SOT, information delivered to the patient’s eyes, feet and joints is effectively eliminated through calibrated ‘‘sway referencing’’ of the support surface and/or visual surround, which tilt to directly follow the patient’s antero-posterior body sway. An equilibrium-score determines the amount of the anteroposterior COG compared with maximal sway limits was calculated for each condition. A composite balance score (CBS) is subsequently calculated. The scores range from 0-100, higher values indicating better stability. The six different conditions were: SOT-1, stable surface, eyes open; SOT-2, stable surface, eyes closed; SOT-3, eyes open with sway referenced surrounded; SOT-4, eyes open with sway referenced surface; SOT-5, eyes closed with sway referenced surface; and SOT-6, eyes open, referenced surface and surround. SOT-1, SOT2, and SOT-3 are static conditions, while SOT-4, SOT-5, and SOT-6 are dynamic conditions. SOT-1-2 refer to patient’s ability to utilize input from the somatosensory system and maintain balance. SOT-1-4 give objective information about patient’s ability of the visual system to maintain balance. SOT-1-5 are identifying ability of using input from vestibular system. Two postural adjustment strategies were examined: relative movements of ankle (ankle strategy) or hip (hip strategy). A software program calculates an equilibrium score, which determines the success of the patient’s sway for each sensory condition. Each test condition was repeated three times, and the average of the three trials was used for data analysis [13].

Trunk Impairment Scale (Tis)

The trunk control of participants was evaluated using the TIS. The validity and reliability of TIS for patients with CP has been demonstrated. The TIS consists of three sub-sections: static balance, dynamic balance, and coordination. Task scores for each activity range from 0–2. The total score ranges from 0–23. Higher total scores indicate better trunk control in sitting posture [14].

Functional Mobility Assessment

The modified Timed Up and Go (mTUG) and Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM) were used to assess functional mobility. The pediatric version of the mTUG was performed for functional mobility assessment. It records the time a child needs to stand up from a chair with foot contact, to walk three meter to a target, turn around and return to the chair and sit down. We performed three mTUG trials and calculated the mean time. Reliability and validity of the mTUG were shown [15].

The GMFM-88 is the most commonly used, valid and reliable measure to evaluate motor function in children with CP, that contains five sections and 88 items. The total score of the GMFM-88 is obtained by adding up the total points for each section. A total score or the scores of each section can be used separately. In this study, we used Section-E to measure walking function [16].

Lower Limb Impairment Assessment

Spasticity and limitations of ROM assessment of lower limb assessed. The measurements were made without clothing.

Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) was used to evaluate spasticity of the gastrocnemius, soleus, hamstring, hip adductor and flexors muscles were evaluated bilaterally. The MAS is a commonly used scale for measuring muscle tone during passive movement with a 6-point scale: (0–4) The MAS is valid and reliable in children with CP [17, 18].

For ROM assessment, a universal goniometry which is valid and reliable in children with CP [19], was used in the evaluation of ROM and Kendall’s values were taken as reference and limitation values were recorded. The ankle dorsiflexion, plantar flexion, eversion and inversion; knee flexion and extension; hip flexion, extension, abduction, adduction, internal and external rotation movements were evaluated passively in the lower extremity.

Statistical Analysis:

Data analysis was completed using the statistical software program SPSS for Windows v.21.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). The Shapiro-Wilk’s test was used to test normality. Data were expressed as means standard deviations. The analysis of the linear relationship was performed Spearman's correlation analysis. The statistical significance level was accepted as p < 0.05. Simple and multiple linear regression analysis (backward modeling) were carried out to determine the most important predictor(s) for explaining mTUG and GMFM-E variance.

Twenty-five patients, consisting of 13 (52%) girls and 12 (48%) boys, with CP were included in the study. The mean age of the patients was 9.64 ± 4.73 years (range 6–16 years) (Table 1). The results of the SOT, trunk control and functional capacity are shown in Table 2, and results of lower limb impairments in Table 3.

Table 2

Results of Computarized Dynamic Posturography and Gait Capasity
	Equilibrium Score	Strategy Score
	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD
Condition 1	83.32 ± 7.28	93.84 ± 3.50
Condition 2	82.22 ± 7.79	94.34 ± 2.79
Condition 3	72.46 ± 20.82	92.72 ± 2.79
Condition 4	63.25 ± 15.19	85.32 ± 5.38
Condition 5	45.02 ± 20.39	75.18 ± 9.60
Condition 6	43.45 ± 17.57	73.90 ± 11.25
Sensory Ratio Analysis
Somatosensory Ratio	97.77 ± 2.50
Visual Ratio	69.83 ± 26.48
Vestibular Ratio	46.93 ± 28.86
Visual Preferance	95.11 ± 5.46
Composite Equilibrium Score	57.92 ± 14.43
Functiomal Capasity
mTUG (s)	9.24 ± 1.64
GMFM-E	85.66 ± 16.86
Trunk Control (TIS)
TIS Static	6.60 ± 0.57
TIS Dynamic	6.92 ± 2.37
TIS Coordination	3.92 ± 0.99
TIS Total	17.44 ± 3.58
GMFM-E: Gross Motor Function Measure Section E, mTUG: modified timed up and go test, SD: standard deviation

Table 3

Lower limb impairment in children with CP
Joint	Passive Range of Movement (Degree)	Right Lower Extremity Mean ± SD	Left Lower Extremity Mean ± SD
Passive Range of Movement (Degree)
Ankle	Dorsiflexion	16.5 ± 2.32	15.92 ± 2.17
	Plantar flexion	0	0
	Inversion	0	0
	Eversion	4.0 ± 1	4.0 ± 1
Knee	Flexion	0	0
Knee	Extantion	23.83 ± 2.93	22.72 ± 7.92
Hip	Flexion	0	0
	Extantion	17.55 ± 5.91	18.27 ± 5.68
	Abduktion	0	0
	Adduktion	21.14 ± 2.86	22.74 ± 3.58
	Internally rotation	0	0
	Externally rotation	11.37 ± 2.30	11.43 ± 2.72
Spasticity Assessment (MAS 0–5)
Gastrocnemius		3.34 ± 0.65	3.28 ± 0.76
Soleus		1.84 ± 0.93	1.87 ± 0.91
Hamstrins		276 ± 0.38	2.57 ± 0.59
Hip flexor		1.97 ± 0.83	1.82 ± 0.71
Hip adductor		1.74 ± 0.75	1.76 ± 0.78
MAS: Modified Ashworth Scale, SD: standard deviation

Results Of Correlations

There was a significant relationship between static trunk control and displacement of the COG in the antero-posterior direction (r = 0.777, p < 0.01), as well as the lateral direction in SOT-2 (r = 0.680; p < 0.05) and between the static trunk control and displacement of the COG in the antero-posterior direction in SOT-4 (r = 0.7; p < 0.05). There was a significant relationship between the hip external rotation (r = 2, p < 0.05) and abduction limitations (right, r = 0.855 p < 0.01, r = 0.715, left p < 0.05) and hip adductors (r=- 0.657 p < 0.05) and flexors (r=-0.663 p < 0.05) and spasticity of hamstrings (r=-0.648 p < 0.05), and antero-posterior displacement of the COG in the SOT-5.

When spasticity and SOT strategy analyses were examined, a significant relationship was found between the spasticity of bilateral hamstring (r=-0.648; p < 0.05), soleus (r=-0.713 p < 0.05) and gastrocnemius (r=-0.716 p < 0.05) muscles and the SOT-1 strategy analysis.

There was a significant relationship between the hip external rotation (r = 1, p < 0.05) and extension limitations (r = 0.775 p < 0.05), and the SOT somatosensory ratio in the lower extremity.

There was a significant relationship between bilateral hip extension (r=-0.695 p < 0.059) and knee extension (r=-0.644 p < 0.05) limitations and spasticity of soleus (r=-0.794 p < 0.05), gastrocnemius (r=-0.657 p < 0,05). Bilateral hip extension (right r = 0.673 p < 0.05, r = 0.773, left p < 0.05) and hip abduction (r=-0.779 p < 0.05) limitations and bilateral hamstring (r = 0.735 p < 0, 05), gastrocnemius (r = 0.747 p < 0.05) and soleus (r = 0.814 p < 0.01) muscled were related with the mTUG tests.

A relationship was found between the ankle dorsiflexion passive joint limitation of the affected side and vestibular response (r=-0.828, p = 0.006), and between the hip external rotation and abduction passive joint limitations and VEST as well as the CBS (external rotation VEST r=-0.673, p < 0.05, CBS r=-0.676 p < 0.05; abduction VEST r=-0.758, p < 0.05; CBS r=-0.778, p < 0.05). A significant relationship was seen between the displacement of the COG towards lateral and hip flexors spasticity in the SOT-5 (r=-0.825, p < 0.01). TUG, and CBS tests were correlated with all sub-dimensions of TIS (p < 0,05) (Table 4).

Table 4

Correlations between the Trunk Impairment Scale and Sensory Organization Test
Sensory Organization Test	Trunk Impairment Scale
	Static		Dynamic			Coordination			Total
	r	P*		r	P*		r	P*		r	P*
Somatosensorial	0.130	0.431		-0.117	0.478		-0.165	0.3140		-0.119	0.472
Visual	0.211	0.197		0.435	< 0.01		0.404	< 0.05		0.431	< 0.01
Vestibular	0.213	0.193		0.210	0.2		0.179	0.275		0.217	0.185
Composite Balance Score	0.415	< 0.01		0.530	< 0.01		0.518	< 0.01		0.544	< 0.01
Modified Timed Up and Go Test	-0.641	0.016		-0.806	< 0.01		-0.590	0.008		-0.80	< 0.01
r: Spearman’s Rho. p: Spearmen Correlation Test

Table 5 shows the results of univariate and multivariate regression analyses and TIS total were found to be independent risk factor of TUG and GMFM-E according to the univariate analyses (ß=-0.77, B:-0.353 standard error: 0.061, p < 0.01; ß=0.809, B:3.806 standard error: 0.578 p < 0.045 respectively). According to the multivariate regression analyses, TIS dynamic, SOM and VEST were found predictors of mTUG, and ROM, TIS dynamic and coordination, VIS were found predictors of GMFM-E (p < 0.05).

Table 5

Results of regression analyses
Dependent variable	Independent variable	B	Std. Error	Beta	p	R²
mTUG	Simple linear regression
	Constant	15.388	1.083		< 0.01
	TIS Total	− .353	.061	− .770	< 0.01	0.593
	Multiple linear regression (backward modeling)
	Step 1
	Constant	-26.115	25.688		.324	0.827
	ROM	.383	.422	.119	.377
	MAS	.077	.049	.402	.133
	TIS Static	− .717	.627	− .253	.269
	TIS Dynamic	− .261	.167	− .379	.137
	TIS Coordination	.326	.326	.198	.332
	Somatosensorial	.170	.102	.261	.114
	Visual	− .006	.011	− .101	.565
	Vestibular	− .010	.010	− .172	.353
	Step 2
	Constant	-25.029	25.123		.333	0.823
	ROM	.321	.400	.100	.434
	MAS	.082	.047	.431	.096
	TIS Static	− .630	.597	− .222	.306
	TIS Dynamic	− .284	.159	− .412	.093
	TIS Coordination	.348	.318	.212	.288
	Somatosensorial	.190	.095	.290	.061
	Vestibular	− .014	.008	− .239	.101
	Step 3
	Constant	-5.803	7.305		.437	0.816
	MAS	.073	.045	.379	.122
	TIS Static	− .573	.587	− .202	.342
	TIS Dynamic	− .325	.149	− .471	.043
	TIS Coordination	.276	.302	.168	.372
	Somatosensorial	.200	.093	.305	.045
	Vestibular	− .016	.007	− .284	.035
	Step 4
	Constant	-4.386	7.109		.545	0.808
	MAS	.045	.033	.237	.188
	TIS Static	− .519	.581	− .183	.383
	TIS Dynamic	− .329	.149	− .477	.039
	SOM	.199	.092	.304	.045
	VEST	− .018	.007	− .324	.011
	Step 5
	Constant	-2.131	6.611		.751	0.800
	MAS	.047	.033	.245	.171
	TIS Dynamic	− .412	.116	− .598	.002
	Somatosensorial	.146	.070	.223	.047
	Vestibular	− .017	.006	− .303	.014
	Step 6
	Constant	-2.303	6.768		.737	0.789
	TIS dynamic	− .541	.073	− .785	.000
	Somatosensorial	.166	.071	.254	.028
	Vestibular	− .021	.006	− .361	.003
GMFM-E	Simple linear regression
	Constant	19.283	10.274		.073
	TIS Total	3.806	.578	.809	.000	0.654
	Multiple linear regression (backward modeling)
	Step 1
	Constant	506.467	245.737		.056	0.850
	ROM	-7.381	4.037	− .223	.086
	MAS	.231	.465	.117	.627
	TIS Static	9.097	5.996	.311	.149
	TIS Dynamic	5.593	1.598	.789	.003
	TIS Coordination	-3.246	3.121	− .192	.314
	Somatosensorial	− .504	.976	− .075	.613
	Visual	− .126	.101	− .197	.234
	Vestibular	.024	.098	.041	.811
	Step 2
	Constant	525.323	226.652		.033	0.850
	ROM	-7.839	3.471	− .237	.037
	MAS	.198	.432	.100	.653
	TIS Static	9.211	5.809	.315	.131
	TIS Dynamic	5.487	1.494	.774	.002
	TIS Coordination	-3.443	2.929	− .203	.256
	Somatosensorial	− .395	.843	− .059	.645
	Visual	− .110	.077	− .173	.170
	Step 3
	Constant	545.094	217.542		.022	0.848
	ROM	-7.962	3.383	− .241	.030
	TIS Static	9.176	5.680	.314	.124
	TIS Dynamic	5.224	1.349	.737	.001
	TIS Coordination	-4.338	2.130	− .256	.057
	Somatosensorial	− .416	.823	− .062	.619
	Visual	− .128	.065	− .201	.064
	Step 4
	Constant	512.333	203.569		.021	0.846
	ROM	-7.940	3.316	− .240	.027
	TIS Static	7.471	4.482	.256	.112
	TIS Dynamic	5.400	1.277	.762	.0001
	TIS Coordination	-4.168	2.061	− .246	.057
	Visual	− .127	.063	− .199	.060
	Step 5
	Constant	490.822	212.004		.031	0.823
	ROM	-6.924	3.402	− .209	.045
	TIS Dynamic	6.927	.929	.977	.0001
	TIS Coordination	-4.055	2.150	− .240	.074
	Visual	− .165	.062	− .259	.014
GMFM-E: gross motor function measure E section, mTUG: Modifed Timed Up and Go Test, TIS: Trunk impairment scale.
B: unstandardized regression coefficient; Std. Error B: standardized error of Beta; ß: standardized regression coefficient; R2: coefficient of determination.

According to our results, lower limb impairment and trunk control plays important role on PC and functional mobility in children with CP. The use of objective and valid evaluations in studies has become important with the increasing significance ascribed to evidence-based applications [20]. PC can be easily evaluated in an objective way by using the CDP that provides significant quantitative data on the vestibular, visual and somatosensory systems as gold standard and is important for the clinical evaluation of children [21].

When the CDP, SOT strategy analyzes' results were evaluated, the ankle movements, which the first movement pattern that the body applies to control its perpendicular status while the hip strategy is used for control in a more unstable state, in the majority of children with CP (n = 23) were found to be abnormal. Our results show that children with CP cannot adapt their body movements to changing environmental conditions and have poor PC. The use of the hip strategy when the ankle strategy is not effective results in increasing the risk of falls as it is inadequate in providing balance in unstable surfaces in children and also increases energy consumption [23].

The body's position in space can be maintained with the coordinated operation of these systems. Deficiencies in this system lead to disorders in PC strategies [23]. Inadequacies of the neural structures result in a disturbance of the order of muscle contradiction in the strategies, one of the most important PC disorders in children with CP. The results of current study show that children with CP have difficulties in maintaining balance in different positions. A significant proportion of children with CP showed impaired somatosensory information and anomalies in strategies in SOT-4 together with impaired balance between the hip and ankle strategies. According to studies, the somatosensory loss results in an increase in hip strategy even when the ankle strategy can be effective [24]. Wingert et al. reported bilateral proprioception loss in children with CP. Damages to the neural connections and sensory receptors also affect postural strategies [25]. Tedroff et al. found more variability in the muscle activation patterns in children with CP than children in the control group similar to our findings and emphasized that this is often found in distal muscles that require an ankle strategy [26]. In addition, they reported an anomaly of the strategies to be a general phenomenon in CP, independent of the complexity of motor skills. The postural strategy anomaly seen in all children with CP that participated in our study except one complies with this information. The strategy findings in our study conducted with CDP are similar to the results obtained by Tedroff et al. with the electromyographic method [26]. Findings in our study and others show that lesions that affect the motor cortex and the corticospinal tract such as seen in CP damage control of the distal leg muscles.

The TIS which evaluates the trunk movements in accordance with real life and therefore provides an important clinical data [14] was used in this study and the deficiency in trunk control is reported to cause activity limitations and participation restriction. It will also affect all activities involving mobility, and limit fields of daily living such as education and social communication [27]. When we compared the findings related to functional movement and the level of body effect, a significant relationship was observed between the all subscales and the total scores of TIS and mTUG. These data reveal the relationship between trunk effect and functionality, and the critical role of the trunk in the organization of postural reactions. Similar to our findings, Verheyden et al. revealed that trunk control measurements are related to balance, walking and functional skills and that the control of the body is an important indicator for daily living activities in various studies they have conducted [28]. This relationship between functional movement tests and trunk control is supported with studies showing that the body has a multi-layered role in the control of straight posture during walking [29]. Additionally, Balzer et al reported the trunk control is strongest predictor of the gait and correlation with mTUG [30], moreover, according to Cankarturan et al. trunk control is one of the predictors of functional mobility (GMFM-B) in non-ambulatory children with CP [31]; Kallem at al. investigated the relationship between trunk control and functionality in children with CP [27]; their study included both ambulatory and non-ambulatory children putting together with our findings, regardless to severity of CP, trunk control is one of strong predictor of functional mobility.

We concluded that the abduction and external rotation limitations of the affected lower extremity are associated with balance and vestibular responses. This suggests that the adduction and internal rotation position that is referred to as the general lower limb posture in children with CP, is one of the reasons of the balance problems in these children. The relationship of the ankle dorsiflexion limitation with vestibular responses can be associated with the impaired ankle strategy. The impairment in ankle biomechanical sequence created by CP could therefore change the strategy responses and creates a differentiation in the efficiency of the balance reactions. We found that hip flexion is associated with the displacement of the COG laterally in the SOT-5 where the eyes were closed and the support surface is moving. We think that, this effect may be one of the reasons underlying the weight transfer problems. The problem associated with the weight transfer appearing in the position where the visual effect was eliminated suggest not only a biomechanical problem, but also a sensory problem as described as Mishra et al. investigated relationship between functional mobility and sensory processing [32] and according to Jovellar-Isiegas et al., sensorial dysfunction affects participation into the life [33].

We found that the spasticity and ROM limitations in the hip region are associated with the proximal responses. This finding reveals the influence of the proximal effect in CP and the fact that the hip and the trunk are integrated as a dynamic system. We believe that the relationship of the hip external rotation and extension limitations with somatosensory data creates a sensory disorder in posture with the internal rotation and flexion of hip that commonly seen in CP gait [34] may leads to loss of balance.

The main limitation of this study is lack of comparing parameters among GMFCS levels CP clinical types, therefore in future studies, it is recommended to compare different types and levels of CP.

Lower limb impairment and trunk control plays important role on PC and functional mobility, therefore it is important including these parameters into the physiotherapy and rehabilitation aiming to improve functional mobility.

Ethical Approval

Ethical approval was obtained from the Hacettepe University ethical committee (Decision no: HEK11/105) according to principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, and the parents of participant children gave written informed consent to participate.

Consent for publication

All authors (1) made substantial contributions to the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data; 2) drafted or revised it the work critically for important intellectual content; (3) approved the version to be published; and (4) agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Availability of data and materials

All authors declare that all data and materials and software application or custom code support their published claims and comply with feld standards.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Funding

Not applicable

Authors' contributions

First author: Data collection, data analysis, reporting

Second author: Data interpretation

Third author: Conceptualization, editing

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rosenbaum P, Paneth N, Leviton A, et al. (2007) A report: the Definition and Classification of Cerebral Palsy, Dev Med Child Neurol 49, 8-14
Galea C, Mcintyre S, Smithers‐Sheedy H, et al. (2019) Cerebral palsy trends in Australia (1995–2009): a population‐based observational study, Dev Med Child Neurol 61(2), 186-193.
Arnaud C, Ehlinger V, Delobel-Ayoub M, et al. (2021) Trends in Prevalence and Severity of Pre/Perinatal Cerebral Palsy Among Children Born Preterm from 2004 to 2010: A SCPE Collaboration Study, Frontiers in neurology 12.
Sadowska M, Sarecka-Hujar B, Kopyta I (2020) Cerebral Palsy: Current Opinions on Definition, Epidemiology, Risk Factors, Classification and Treatment Options, Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat 12;16:1505-1518.
Saavedra SL, Goodworth DD (2019) Postural Control in Children and Youth with Cerebral Palsy. In: Miller F, Bachrach S, Lennon N, O'Neil M. (eds) Cerebral Palsy. Springer, Cham
Ozal C, Ari G, Kerem Gunel M (2019) Inter–intra observer reliability and validity of the Turkish version of Trunk Control Measurement Scale in children with cerebral palsy, Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica 53(5):381-384.
Pavão SL, dos Santos AN, Woollacott MH, et al. (2013) Assessment of postural control in children with cerebral palsy: a review. Research in developmental disabilities 34(5), 1367-1375
Pollock A, Baer G, Campbell P, et al. (2014) Physical rehabilitation approaches for the recovery of function and mobility following stroke, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 4
de Araújo PA, Starling JMP, Oliveira VC, et al. (2020) Combining balance-training interventions with other active interventions may enhance effects on postural control in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Brazilian journal of physical therapy 24(4), 295-305.
Montoro‐Cárdenas D, Cortés‐Pérez I, Zagalaz‐Anula N, et al. (2021) Nintendo Wii Balance Board therapy for postural control in children with cerebral palsy: a systematic review and meta‐analysis, Dev Med Child Neurol 63(11), 1262-1275.
Miller F, Bolton M, Capone C, Chambers H, Damiano D, Fernando-Palazzi F et al. (2005) Cerebral Palsy. New York: Springer Science + Business Media, Inc
Trueblood PR, Rivera M, Lopez C, et al. (2018) Age-based normative data for a computerized dynamic posturography system that uses a virtual visual surround environment, Acta oto-laryngologica 138 (7), 597-602.
Aksoy S, Öztürk B (2011) Bilgisayarlı Dinamik Postürografi, Bulak Burun Boğaz Hastalıklarında İleri Teknoloji, Ed. H.T. Ergin, Amerikan Hastanesi, İstanbul, 2011; p. 32-47
Pavão SL, Maeda DA, Corsi C, et al. (2019) Discriminant ability and criterion validity of the Trunk Impairment Scale for cerebral palsy, Disabil Rehabil 41(18):2199-205.
Williams EN, Carroll SG, Reddihough DS, et al. (2005) Investigation of the timed ‘up & go’ test in children, Dev Med Child Neurol 47:518–524
Te Velde A, Morgan C (2022) Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM-66 & GMFM-88) User's Manual, Book Review
Mutlu A, Livanelioglu A, Kerem Gunel M (2008) Reliability of Ashworth and Modified Ashworth scales in children with spastic cerebral palsy, BMC musculoskeletal disorders 9(1), 1-8.
Numanoglu A, Kerem Günel M (2011) Intraobserver reliability of modified Ashworth scale and modified Tardieu scale in the assessment of spasticity in children with cerebral palsy, Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica 46, 196-200.
Mutlu A, Livanelioglu A, Kerem Gunel M (2007) Reliability of goniometric measurements in children with spastic cerebral palsy, Medical science monitor 13(7), CR323-CR329.
Lund H, Juhl CB, Nørgaard B, et al. (2021) Evidence-based research series-paper 2: using an evidence-based research approach before a new study is conducted to ensure value, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 129, 158-166.
Trueblood PR, Rivera M, Lopez C, et al. (2018) Age-based normative data for a computerized dynamic posturography system that uses a virtual visual surround environment. Acta oto-laryngologica 138(7), 597-602
Meyns P, Kerkum YL, Brehm MA, Becher JG, Buizer AI, Harlaar J (2020) Ankle foot orthoses in cerebral palsy: Effects of ankle stiffness on trunk kinematics, gait stability and energy cost of walking. European Journal of Paediatric Neurology 26, 68-74.
Shumway- Cook A, Woollacott MH (2007) Motor Control: Translating Research into Clinical Practise, Pennsylvania: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Zarkou A, Lee SC, Prosser LA, Jeka JJ (2020) Foot and ankle somatosensory deficits affect balance and motor function in children with cerebral palsy, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 14, 45.
Wingert JR, Burton H, Sinclair RJ, Damiano DL (2009) Joint Position Sense and Kinesthesia in Cerebral Palsy, Arch Phys Med Reha 90(3), 447-453
Tedroff K, Knutson LM, Soderberg GL (2006) Synergistic Muscle Activation During Maximum Voluntary Contractions in Children with and without Spastic Cerebral Palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol 48, 789-796
Kallem Seyyar G, Aras B, Aras O (2019) Trunk control and functionality in children with spastic cerebral palsy, Dev Neurorehabil 22:120-25
Verheyden G, Williams AM, Ooms L, Nieuwboer A (2007) Validity of the Trunk Impairment Scale as a Measure of Trunk Performance in People with Parkinson’s Disease, Arch Phys Med Rehab 88, 1304-130
Reddy S, Balaji GK (2020) Dynamic surface exercise training in improving trunk control and gross motor functions among children with quadriplegic cerebral palsy: A single center, randomized controlled trial, Journal of Pediatric Neurosciences 15(3), 214
Balzer J, Marsico P, Mitteregger E, et al. (2018) Influence of trunk control and lower extremity impairments on gait capacity in children with cerebral palsy. Disabil Rehabil 40(26):3164-70.
Cankurtaran D, Abidin N, Akyuz EU, Tezel N (2021) An investigation into the factors which affect the sitting balance of non-ambulatory children with cerebral palsy. Neurology Asia 26(3).
Mishra DP, Mishra G, Das SP, et al. (2020) Sensory Processing/Integration Dysfunction Affects Functional Mobility of Children with Cerebral Palsy, J Neonatol Clin Pediatr 7, 043
Jovellar-Isiegas P, Resa Collados I, Jaén-Carrillo D, et al. (2020) Sensory processing, functional performance and quality of life in unilateral cerebral palsy children: a cross-sectional study, International journal of environmental research and public health 17(19), 7116.
Papageorgiou E, Nieuwenhuys A, Vandekerckhove I, et al. (2019) Systematic review on gait classifications in children with cerebral palsy: an update, Gait & posture 69, 209-223

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Influence of Lower Extremity Impairment and Trunk Control on Postural Control and Functional Mobility in Children with Spastic Cerebral Palsy

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Introduction

Methods

Participants

Posturographic Evaluation

Trunk Impairment Scale (Tis)

Functional Mobility Assessment

Lower Limb Impairment Assessment

Statistical Analysis:

Results

Results Of Correlations

Discussion

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1