580 likes | 804 Views
Gait analysis and Single-event Multi-level surgery The Melbourne Experience. Richard Baker Professor of Clinical Gait Analysis. Clinical scientist. Member of IPEM Registered with HPC. Me!. MA Physics and Theoretical Physics PhD Biomechanical Engineering
E N D
Gait analysis and Single-event Multi-level surgeryThe Melbourne Experience Richard Baker Professor of Clinical Gait Analysis
Clinical scientist • Member of IPEM • Registered with HPC
Me! • MA Physics and Theoretical Physics • PhD Biomechanical Engineering • 7 years Gait Analysis Service Manager Musgrave Park Hospital, Belfast • 9 years Gait Analysis Service Manager Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne
Population Victoria 5.5 million Melbourne 4.1 million (Greater Manchester 2.6 million) 120 new cases of CP annually
Optimising gross motor function for children with CP Doing the simple things well
Optimising gross motor function for children with CP • GMFCS (Gross motor classification system) • Age • Unit/bilateral involvement • Motor type • (CP like conditions)
Level I Level II Level III GMFCS Level IV Level V Palisano et al. DMCN 1997 Revised and extended Palisano et al. DMCN 2008
Impairments and age Muscle Contracture Joint contracture Bony deformity Spasticity Weakness Botox ITB SDR Exercise? Strenghtening? Diet? SEMLS Physiotherapy and orthoses
SEMLS • Minimum of one procedure at two levels (hip/knee/ankle) on both sides
Typical SEMLS • Psoas recession • Femoral derotationosteotomy • Semitendinosus transfer • Gastrocnemius recession • Calcaneal lengthening
SEMLS – who for • GMFCS I rare (too good) • GMFCS II • GMFCS III • GMFCS IV rare (too bad) • GMFCS V never
SEMLS – Why? ICF WHO 2001
SEMLS – Why? • Improve gross motor function (not just walking) • Prevent deterioration • Increase activity and participation? • Improve quality of life?
SEMLS – When? • After • maturation of gross motor performance • consolidation of skeleton (particularly feet) • Before • increased education demands • grumpy adolescence
Pre-operative Processes • Spasticity management in early childhood • Surgeon decides surgery is required (8-10 years old) • Pre-op gait analysis to determine nature of surgery
Pre-admission clinic • Admitted as “day case” • Child and family get to meet ward staff • Equipment arranged(orthoses, walking aids, other OT) • Rehabilitation discussed • Consultation with community physio
In-patient In-patient • 7 days • No rehab • Appropriate lying
0-3 months Restricted mobility and therapy • Non weight-bearing 3 weeks • Cast change at 3 weeks • Orthoses delivered 6 weeks. • 6-12 weeks back on feet with Solid AFOs walking with frame or crutches • 12 weeks: 1st post-op video session
3-6 months Intensive therapy • Community based (home/school) • Move off frame/crutches • Extending walking distances • Maintain knee extension • 6 months: 2nd post-op video
6-12 months Routine therapy • Community based (home/school) • Maintain progress • Move off crutches/sticks • Move to hinged orthoses? • 9 months: 3rd post-op video session • 12 months: post-op gait analysis (outcome assessment)
12-24 months • Optimum function will not generally be achieved until into the second year.
Video sessions • Standardised video recording and simplified clinical exam. • Review by specialist physiotherapist in person and surgeons by video. • Review progress (walking aids and orthoses) • Ensure knee extension.
INTERVENTION HOURS PROVIDED Botox – calves only 6 hours Botox – multilevel 12 hours Single level surgery – hemiplegia 6 hours Single level surgery – diplegia 12 hours Two level surgery – hemiplegia 12 hours Two level surgery – diplegia 18 hours Non-ambulant – hip surgery 12 hours SEMLS – hemiplegia (bony and soft) 30 hours SEMLS – diplegia (bony and soft) 70 hours PIP fund
Gait analysis • To identify impairments • Basis for planning surgery • Outcome assessment
Impairment focussed assessment • Aims to identify impairments • Clearly link this to evidence from: • Instrumented gait analysis • Physical examination
RCT of SEMLs Thomason et al. JBJR-Am 2011
Participants • 6-12 years old, GMFCS II or III • 11 in SEMLS group • 8 in control group
Audit of SEMLs Rutz et al. ESMAC 2011
Participants • All patients having SEMLS 1995-2008 • 121 patients GMFCS II and III • 48 girls, 73 boys • Age 10.7+/- 2.7
GMFCS • 113 (93%) no change in GMFCS • 6 children from GMFCS III to II • 2 children from GMFCS II to I • No child deteriorated by GMFCS level • Children who improved were either marginal or had evidence of earlier deterioration
Predictors of GPS change • Age at surgery • GMFCS • GPS pre-op • No. of procedures • Adverse events • Private health insurance • Previous surgery