Transverse Myelitis and Genu Recuvatum (Full Version)

All Forums >> [RehabEdge Forum] >> Pediatrics



Message


DP -> Transverse Myelitis and Genu Recuvatum (April 7, 2000 11:16:00 PM)

I just started seeing a 3 year-old who was dx with transverse myelitis in 11/99. She presents with fair->good strength in her right LE & poor->fair strength in her left LE. In static standing without shoes, she presents with increased lumber lordosis and decreased left LE WB, with increased left pronation and knee valgus+recuvatum. She has a left articuating MAFO with a PF stop at 3 degrees DF and free DF. She stands and amb independently with the MAFO, but still displays knee hyperextension much of the time when weight-shifting left in standing and in left stance during amb. We are working on activities to address the trunk and LE musculature, but I want to prevent the current hyperextension. I plan to try increasing the MAFO DF slightly or adding a wedge under the heel to see if that facilitates more knee flexion. Does anyone have any other ideas and/or references that might address this problem?

Thanks in advance,
DP




Andrew M. Ball, MS, PT -> Re: Transverse Myelitis and Genu Recuvatum (April 8, 2000 3:13:00 AM)

It's really hard to do an orthotic consult over the internet, but I'll give it a shot.

The first thing that I'd suggest is putting the child in standing, and gently pulling her leg out of recurvatum. One of two things will happen.

1. You will find strong resistance to you gentile facilitation

2. You will have no problem pulling the child out of recurvatum.

If you find strong resistance, you'll find that very little will be affected by your orthotic intervention, and you should be looking elsewhere for your solution. Try gastroc control during tibial advancement; also look at dynamic quad control.

In younger kids (under 3 or so) I usually get pretty good results with a SMO (supramaleolar orthotic) and a posterior strap which sets ankle angle at 5 degrees DF(I use 3 to 5 degrees DF as my range).

You may wish to consider that you need to go higher if you have an older kid. In such cases, I usually go with a Cascade pseudoarticulating orthotic with a flexible back which limits PF beyond 5 degrees, AND assists with tibial advancement through loading response. In kids with spina bifida, I consider floor reaction orthotic.

For more information, you may wish to take a look at [URL=http://www.dafo.com.]www.dafo.com.[/URL]

Personally, I’ve found Don Bluthorn, CPO, at Cascade Orthotics and Laura Case, PT, PCS at Duke Children’s Hospital to be invaluable resources in orthotic fabrication when I’ve got a question . . . and with the internet, the world is much smaller than ever before . . . but I’m sure that you’ve got a local resource near you. If not, the UNC-Chapel Hill Telability project has among its members Dr. Joshua Alexander – Pediatric Physiatrist, and most of the faculty from the physical therapy program. With the right equipment, you could access a very sophisticated consult for your client, even in the most rural of areas. Point your internet browser to [URL=http://www.telability.com]www.telability.com[/URL] for more information.

Though several therapists have offered to introduce me to Beverly Cusack, PT, I’ve not yet had the pleasure, but her reputation is light-years ahead of most other pediatric orthotists and physical therapists in this regard.

Hope this gave you a few ideas.

Good Luck,
Drew

P.S. I've forwarded a copy of your question to Beverly Cusak, we'll see if she can help us out . . . provided that I got the E-mail address correct!

[This message has been edited by Andrew M. Ball, MS, PT (edited April 08, 2000).]




DP -> Re: Transverse Myelitis and Genu Recuvatum (April 9, 2000 6:46:00 PM)

Drew,

Thank you for your reply and the Cascade and TelAbility resources. The child can easily be repostioned out of recurvatum in standing, but cannot maintain this when weight-shifted to her weaker side. Since she has an articulating MAFO already, I will try increasing the DF angle of the PF stop to facilitate increased knee flexion.

With young children (she is 3 y/o), have you ever used biofeedback, or any type of knee support that provides proprioceptive input, to encourage quad control & decrease/prevent hyperextension?

Thanks again, DP




Bobcat -> Re: Transverse Myelitis and Genu Recuvatum (April 10, 2000 8:31:00 AM)

Your description is well-rendered. In terms of mechanical stability, what is your impression of why the child would maintain a combined position of lumbar lordosis and knee recurvatum during loading of body weight on the impaired side?




Andrew M. Ball, MS, PT -> Re: Transverse Myelitis and Genu Recuvatum (April 10, 2000 9:28:00 AM)

Again, this discussion is complex in text, but I'll give it a shot:

I'd assume that this is a low, or low-normal toned child. Rectus strength and control didn't develop well, hence lumbar lordosis.

Recurvatum during stance (static or dynamic) is usually the result of poor gastroc and quad strengh/control. If gastrocs are shot and quads are over a "threshold strength" then you instead tend to see more of a croutched walking pattern.

Anyone else have some thoughts?

Drew

------------------
Andrew M. Ball, MS, PT
MBA/PhD Candidate




Bobcat -> Re: Transverse Myelitis and Genu Recuvatum (April 22, 2000 3:26:00 PM)

Well, DP, your description was well-rendered. Your follow-through, however, was non-existent.

This is a part of the solution:

Presumptions:
1. The child was motorically normal prior to the transverse myelitis, and was accustomed to a normal gait cycle and speed.
2. There are no cognitive impairments.
3. The transverse myelitis has impaired the child's control in a manner similar to a partial/incomplete spinal cord transection.
4. Left LE lacks consistent antigravity support capability; extensors and flexors are approximately equally affected, proximal and distal segments are approximately equally affected.
5. "Strength" impairment in the affected limbs are due to motor recruitment reduction and reduced conduction rate of voluntary fibers, as well as decreased sensory feedback during a volitionally executed task, which will decrease motor output per specific task, especially automatic responses modulated by conscious control.

Comments:

Positional states of knee hyperextension and excessive lumbar lordosis are components of a mechanically stable configuration that typically establish stable columnar support for erect stance. The other evident components include hip extension and pelvic anterior tilt.

The configuration can be maintained passively by aligning body segments relative to an assigned neutral line of gravitation such that influence of gravity is effected counter to existing passive soft tissue constraints.

Though statically stable, the configuration can be used to provide brief yet reliable, stable support for transitions to dynamic postures, as during mid and terminal stance.
As a result, the position may be energetically favorable and no motor activity or effort and delay of recruitment is necessary to sustain the position within a certain range of deflection of the so-called "thrust line". In turn, it may also be behaviorally favorable from the child's perspective, because the static stability is known to be more reliable than attempting active antigravity control, and it also feels "locked in" and safe.

In this particular case, the child locks into knee hyperextension upon L sided loading to establish a stable support column on the left side before pushing off to support on the right. If one tries to decrease the child's reliance on the stable knee hyperextension position, it must first be well established that there is effective active control at the knee, and that the control is sufficiently rapid and forceful, and finally, that it is responsive enough in terms of sensorimotor communication to catch the trunk should the unsteady knee begin to buckle. If one does not establish this capability, though one can brace the ankle to force relative flexion at the knee with one result being collapse of the knee extensor mechanism, and a fall, or, a compensatory extremely short stance time on the impaired side. In transverse myelitis, it is not only the sensory delay but also the motor delay of transmission, so that even though the child can generate a contraction of sufficient strength, the event may not happen quickly enough.

Therapies to address knee control are PNF contract-relax and rhythmic stabilization methods. Motor level electrical stimulation is effective if the child can tolerate it.

Some specific things that can work:

Stand the kid up against the wall. Nudge her onto the weak side and give firm manual support and assurance. Weak knee should go into hyperextension, otherwise there may be a loss of static position. Manually move the knee out of hyperextension into neutral and then flexion. Observe for attempted compensatory movements above the leg, and also knee extensor and flexor activity, as well as ankle stabilizing activity (in terms of motor reaction). Observe for sufficient motor activity and speed to sustain a flexed knee position using the wall for some friction. You can modify this by using a tilt platform (table) to decrease the load due to gravitation and then modulate the influence of the load vector. To coax the child into moving the knee into flexion -- try a teletubby on a string -- you know -- bump the teletubby with your knee, etc.

You can also do more traditional PNF contract relax methods but I doubt the child will pay any attention.

Another thing to try is to sit the child and have her do either:
a) cycling
or
b) rolling a ball with the foot.

If you have her cycle, you can apply force through those phases of the cycle where you would expect knee extensor recruitment and activation and encourage it with tapping or timed E-stim. Or bribery with candy and toys. If you use the ball, you must apply greater manual constraint of lateral deviation off the ball, but the ball is usually more fun, and because it allows more degrees of freedom at the terminal end of the closed chain, much more positional sensory feedback is afforded, as compared to the cycle, where more joint compression though sagittal directions are provided (assuming there are receptors available to pick up the movement).

If there is a sensory deficit impairing motor output, strap on a cuff weight, usually distally, to increase sensory feedback due to sheer load and also inertia, or, if you are brave, firmly tape theraband along the lateral and anterior aspects of the leg - directly to the skin. This acts as a contractile external circuit, so to speak, in which tension occurs during certain movements and can provide both cutaneous and out of the ordinary motor resistive effects against desired movement which can effectively bombard a sensory impaired motor behavior with information that it needs. Tapping doesn't hurt either.

You can also translate some of these methods to the giant foam hotdogs.

There are some things you can do with theraband in standing, but these methods are usually not effective with children.

Other obvious measures are knee extensor control exercises gravity reduced in water, and via sling support in a sling-pulley setup. I can elaborate on this if anyone's interested.

That partial weight bearing gait device Drew promotes would probably be very useful also.

[This message has been edited by Bobcat (edited April 22, 2000).]




Page: [1]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode

0.063