4.5 Article

Quantifying passive muscle stiffness in children with and without cerebral palsy using ultrasound shear wave elastography

期刊

DEVELOPMENTAL MEDICINE AND CHILD NEUROLOGY
卷 58, 期 12, 页码 1288-1294

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/dmcn.13179

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [KL2TR000136-07, K12HD00109, F30 AG044075]
  2. Mayo Clinic Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
  3. CTSA from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), component of the National Institutes of Health [UL1 TR000135]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AimThe aim of this study was to compare passive muscle stiffness in children with cerebral palsy (CP) and children with typical development using a novel ultrasound technique: ultrasound shear wave elastography (SWE). MethodWe conducted a prospective study of 13 children with CP (six females and seven males, median age 5y 1mo [interquartile range 4y 4mo-7y 8mo]) and 13 children with typical development (six females and seven males, median age 5y 3mo [interquartile range 4y 4mo-9y 4mo]). Demographic information and physical exam measurements were obtained in addition to shear modulus measurements (passive muscle stiffness) of the lateral gastrocnemius muscle at 20 degrees plantar flexion, 10 degrees plantar flexion, and 0 degrees plantar flexion using SWE. ResultsChildren with CP had significantly greater shear modulus measurements at all three foot positions (p<0.050). When the shear modulus values were normalized to the baseline value for each child, there was no significant difference between the two groups. InterpretationPassive muscle stiffness, measured without the influence of spasticity, is greater in children with CP than in children with typical development when a muscle is at slack and at stretch. When shear modulus was normalized, the results indicate that muscle in children in both groups responds similarly to passive stretch. Further work includes evaluating effect of botulinum toxin on passive muscle properties.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据