No abstract

Background and purpose To support clinical decision‐making in central neurological disorders, a physical examination is used to assess responses to passive muscle stretch. However, what exactly is being assessed is expressed and interpreted in different ways. A clear diagnostic framework is lacking. Therefore, the aim was to arrive at unambiguous terminology about the concepts and measurement around pathophysiological neuromuscular response to passive muscle stretch. Methods During two consensus meetings, 37 experts from 12 European countries filled online questionnaires based on a Delphi approach, followed by plenary discussion after rounds. Consensus was reached for agreement ≥75%. Results The term hyper‐resistance should be used to describe the phenomenon of impaired neuromuscular response during passive stretch, instead of for example ‘spasticity’ or ‘hypertonia’. From there, it is essential to distinguish non‐neural (tissue‐related) from neural (central nervous system related) contributions to hyper‐resistance. Tissue contributions are elasticity, viscosity and muscle shortening. Neural contributions are velocity dependent stretch hyperreflexia and non‐velocity dependent involuntary background activation. The term ‘spasticity’ should only be used next to stretch hyperreflexia, and ‘stiffness’ next to passive tissue contributions. When joint angle, moment and electromyography are recorded, components of hyper‐resistance within the framework can be quantitatively assessed. Conclusions A conceptual framework of pathophysiological responses to passive muscle stretch is defined. This framework can be used in clinical assessment of hyper‐resistance and will improve communication between clinicians. Components within the framework are defined by objective parameters from instrumented assessment. These parameters need experimental validation in order to develop treatment algorithms based on the aetiology of the clinical phenomena.

Study design: Cross-sectional study. Objective: To study the manifestation of spasticity in daily life of the patients with spinal cord injury, their perception of spasticity and spasticity-related discomfort. Setting: Rehabilitation center in the Netherlands. Methods: Twenty-six patients with motor complete spinal cord injury (SCI) and spasticity in the lower limbs completed a questionnaire. The following outcome measures were used: manifestation of spasticity, activities during which spasticity occurs, perceived degree of spasticity and resulting discomfort, measured with visual analog scale (VAS) and Borg scale, respectively. Results: In general, spasticity manifested as extensor spasms (84.6%), flexor spasms and/or clonus (both 69.2%), and less often as continuous tension (57.7%). The registered activities were categorized into five main groups: 'changing position' was the largest group (22.0%) with a median VAS of 6.8 (range: 2.5-9.5) and median Borg scale of 3.0 (range: 1.0-7.0). Other groups of activities were 'making a transfer' (20.7%), 'activities of daily living' (17.1%), 'being active' (17.1%) and 'stable body position' (12.2%). The overall correlation between VAS and Borg was moderate (Spearman's rho ¼ 0.53, P ¼ 0.005). Conclusions: Patients with complete SCI experienced several manifestations of spasticity, extensor spasms being the most common. Many daily life activities elicited different manifestations of spasticity. The experienced discomfort was only moderately related to the perceived degree of spasticity during an activity. Possibly, the discomfort is influenced by other factors than the perceived spasticity alone.

No abstract

Perceived spasticity appeared associated with psychological factors in complete patients with SCI: Those with higher levels of reassuring thoughts and lower levels of helplessness reported relatively lower levels of perceived spasticity. Large prospective cohort studies are recommended.