Measurement properties of a new wireless electrogoniometer for quantifying spasticity during the pendulum test in ARSACS patients

AAPM&R consensus guidance on spasticity assessment and management

BACKGROUND

The American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R) conducted a comprehensive review in 2021 to identify opportunities for enhancing the care of adult and pediatric patients with spasticity. A technical expert panel (TEP) was convened to develop consensus-based practice recommendations aimed at addressing gaps in spasticity care.

OBJECTIVE

To develop consensus-based practice recommendations to identify and address gaps in spasticity care.

METHODS

The Spasticity TEP engaged in a 16-month virtual meeting process, focusing on formulating search terms, refining research questions, and conducting a structured evidence review. Evidence quality was assessed by the AAPM&R Evidence, Quality and Performance Committee (EQPC), and a modified Delphi process was employed to achieve consensus on recommendation statements and evidence grading. The Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) guided the rating of individual studies and the strength of recommendations.

RESULTS

The TEP approved five recommendations for spasticity management and five best practices for assessment and management, with one recommendation unable to be graded due to evidence limitations. Best practices were defined as widely accepted components of care, while recommendations required structured evidence reviews and grading. The consensus guidance statement represents current best practices and evidence-based treatment options, intended for use by PM&R physicians caring for patients with spasticity.

CONCLUSION

This consensus guidance provides clinicians with practical recommendations for spasticity assessment and management based on the best available evidence and expert opinion. Clinical judgment should be exercised, and recommendations tailored to individual patient needs, preferences, and risk profiles. The accompanying table summarizes the best practice recommendations for spasticity assessment and management, reflecting principles with little controversy in care delivery.

Effect of body position and external ankle load on the pendulum test in adults

BACKGROUND

The pendulum test is commonly used to measure passive stiffness about the knee in healthy and clinical populations. While most studies used an upright position, some studies explored different body positions, particularly with children. Additionally, including external ankle load increases the passive motion of the lower leg in children with Down syndrome. Does combining body position and ankle loading affect joint kinematics and muscle activity of the knee extensors during the pendulum test?

METHODS

Twenty young adults participated in this study. Three body positions were included: 90-dgree upright, 45-degree incline, and 0-degree supine. Three load conditions were tested: no load (0%), and ankle loads equal to 3% and 6% of the subject's body mass. This resulted in a total of 9 conditions. Five trials were collected for each condition.

RESULTS

The upright position elicited a greater number of leg swings and a longer duration of the first knee flexion, while the incline position produced a higher relaxation index. Both ankle load conditions (3% and 6%) increased the magnitude of the first flexion excursion and relaxation index, and the 6% condition produced greater kinematic variables than the 3% load condition. Neither body position nor ankle load elicited muscle activity of the quadriceps.

CONCLUSIONS

Body position and external ankle load can affect the kinematics of leg swing during the pendulum test in healthy young adults. Particularly, ankle loads may increase passive motion about the knee. However, we wonder whether small differences across body positions would be clinically relevant.

Technology-assisted assessment of spasticity: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Spasticity is defined as "a motor disorder characterised by a velocity dependent increase in tonic stretch reflexes (muscle tone) with exaggerated tendon jerks". It is a highly prevalent condition following stroke and other neurological conditions. Clinical assessment of spasticity relies predominantly on manual, non-instrumented, clinical scales. Technology based solutions have been developed in the last decades to offer more specific, sensitive and accurate alternatives but no consensus exists on these different approaches.

METHOD

A systematic review of literature of technology-based methods aiming at the assessment of spasticity was performed. The approaches taken in the studies were classified based on the method used as well as their outcome measures. The psychometric properties and usability of the methods and outcome measures reported were evaluated.

RESULTS

124 studies were included in the analysis. 78 different outcome measures were identified, among which seven were used in more than 10 different studies each. The different methods rely on a wide range of different equipment (from robotic systems to simple goniometers) affecting their cost and usability. Studies equivalently applied to the lower and upper limbs (48% and 52%, respectively). A majority of studies applied to a stroke population (N = 79). More than half the papers did not report thoroughly the psychometric properties of the measures. Analysis identified that only 54 studies used measures specific to spasticity. Repeatability and discriminant validity were found to be of good quality in respectively 25 and 42 studies but were most often not evaluated (N = 95 and N = 78). Clinical validity was commonly assessed only against clinical scales (N = 33). Sensitivity of the measure was assessed in only three studies.

CONCLUSION

The development of a large diversity of assessment approaches appears to be done at the expense of their careful evaluation. Still, among the well validated approaches, the ones based on manual stretching and measuring a muscle activity reaction and the ones leveraging controlled stretches while isolating the stretch-reflex torque component appear as the two promising practical alternatives to clinical scales. These methods should be further evaluated, including on their sensitivity, to fully inform on their potential.

Genetics of Autosomal Recessive Spastic Ataxia of Charlevoix-Saguenay (ARSACS) and Role of Sacsin in Neurodegeneration

Autosomal recessive spastic ataxia of Charlevoix-Saguenay (ARSACS) is an early-onset neurodegenerative disease that was originally discovered in the population from the Charlevoix-Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean (CSLSJ) region in Quebec. Although the disease progression of ARSACS may start in early childhood, cases with later onset have also been observed. Spasticity and ataxia could be common phenotypes, and retinal optic nerve hypermyelination is detected in the majority of patients. Other symptoms, such as pes cavus, ataxia and limb deformities, are also frequently observed in affected individuals. More than 200 mutations have been discovered in the SACS gene around the world. Besides French Canadians, SACS genetics have been extensively studied in Tunisia or Japan. Recently, emerging studies discovered SACS mutations in several other countries. SACS mutations could be associated with pathogenicity either in the homozygous or compound heterozygous stages. Sacsin has been confirmed to be involved in chaperon activities, controlling the microtubule balance or cell migration. Additionally, sacsin may also play a crucial role in regulating the mitochondrial functions. Through these mechanisms, it may share common mechanisms with other neurodegenerative diseases. Further studies are needed to define the exact functions of sacsin. This review introduces the genetic mutations discovered in the SACS gene and discusses its pathomechanisms and its possible involvement in other neurodegenerative diseases.

Objective assessment of spasticity by pendulum test: a systematic review on methods of implementation and outcome measures

Background

Instrumented pendulum test is an objective and repeatable biomechanical method of assessment for spasticity. However, multitude of sensor technologies and plenty of suggested outcome measures, confuse those interested in implementing this method in practice. Lack of a standard agreement on the definition of experimental setup and outcome measures adds to this ambiguity and causes the results of one study not to be directly attainable by a group that uses a different setup. In this systematic review of studies, we aim to reduce the confusion by providing pros and cons of the available choices, and also by standardizing the definitions.

Methods

A literature search was conducted for the period of 1950 to the end of 2019 on PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar and IEEE explore; with keywords of “pendulum test” and “Spasticity”.

Results

Twenty-eight studies with instrumented pendulum test for assessment of spasticity met the inclusion criteria. All the suggested methods of implementation were compared and advantages and disadvantages were provided for each sensor technology. An exhaustive list categorized outcome measures in three groups of angle-based, angular velocity-based, and angular acceleration-based measures with all different names and definitions.

Conclusions

With the aim of providing standardized methodology with replicable and comparable results, sources of dissimilarity and ambiguity among research strategies were found and explained with the help of graphical representation of pendulum movement stages and corresponding parameters on the angular waveforms. We hope using the provided tables simplify the choices when implementing pendulum test for spasticity evaluation, improve the consistency when reporting the results, and disambiguate inconsistency in the literature.