3.8 Article

The Cervical Range of Motion as a Factor Affecting Outcome in Patients With Congenital Muscular Torticollis

Journal

ANNALS OF REHABILITATION MEDICINE-ARM
Volume 37, Issue 2, Pages 183-190

Publisher

KOREAN ACAD REHABILITATION MEDICINE
DOI: 10.5535/arm.2013.37.2.183

Keywords

Congenital muscular torticollis; Range of motion; Rehabilitation; Prognosis

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To investigate the factors affecting rehabilitation outcomes in children with congenital muscular torticollis (CMT). Methods We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 347 patients who were clinically suspected as having CMT and performed neck ultrasonography to measure sternocleidomastoid (SCM) muscle thickness. Fifty-four patients met the inclusion criteria. Included were demographic characteristics as well as measurements of cervical range of motion (ROM), SCM muscle thickness, and the abnormal/normal (A/N) ratio, defined as the ratio of SCM muscle thickness on the affected to the unaffected side. Results Subjects were divided into three groups depending on degree of cervical ROM (group 1A: ROM>60, n=12; group 1B: 60 >= ROM>30, n=31; group 1C: ROM <= 30, n=11), the SCM muscle thickness (Th) (group 2A: Th<1.2 cm, n=23; group 2B: 1.2 <= Th<1.4 cm, n=18; group 2C: Th >= 1.4 cm, n=13), and the A/N ratio (R) (group 3A: R<2.2, n=19; group 3B: 2.2 <= R<2.8, n=20; group 3C: R >= 2.8, n=15). We found that more limited cervical ROM corresponded to longer treatment duration. The average treatment duration was 4.55 months in group 1A, 5.87 months in group 1B, and 6.50 months in group 1C. SCM muscle thickness and the A/N ratio were not correlated with treatment duration. Conclusion Infants with CMT who were diagnosed earlier and had an earlier intervention had a shorter duration of rehabilitation. Initial cervical ROM is an important prognostic factor for predicting the rehabilitation outcome of patients with CMT.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available