4.5 Article

In children with Friedreich ataxia, muscle and ataxia parameters are associated

期刊

DEVELOPMENTAL MEDICINE AND CHILD NEUROLOGY
卷 53, 期 6, 页码 529-534

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2011.03931.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim In children with Friedreich ataxia (FRDA), ataxia is assessed using the surrogate marker the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS). We aimed to determine whether ICARS scores in children with FRDA are confounded by muscle weakness. Method In 12 children with FRDA (10 males, two females; mean age 13y 6mo, SD 2y 6mo) and 12 age-matched children without FRDA (nine males; three females), we determined the association between muscle and ataxia parameters (i.e. muscle ultrasound density (MUD), muscle force, sensory evoked potentials, and ICARS scores). Children with FRDA were included on the basis of FXN gene analysis. Children in the comparison group were included on basis of uneventful pregnancy and normal cognitive and neurological development. Results In children with FRDA, muscle ultrasound density was homogeneously increased in the biceps, quadriceps, and tibialis anterior muscles (median 4SD). FRDA muscle weakness was significantly more pronounced in proximal than in distal muscles (-2SD vs -0.5SD respectively; p=0.004), with a stronger impairment of leg muscles than of arm muscles (-2SD vs -0. SD respectively; p=0.001). Comparing MUD between children with FRDA and an age-matched comparison group revealed a relatively strong increase in MUD in the proximal leg muscles in the FRDA group. Under the condition of persistently absent sensory evoked potentials, leg ICARS subscores in the FRDA group appeared to be positively associated with leg muscle force until a maximal plateau level of ICARS subscores was reached. Interpretation In children with FRDA, ataxia scales based on ICARS are confounded by muscle weakness. Longitudinal ICARS evaluations in children with FRDA do not necessarily indicate altered ataxia.

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