Serebral palsili çocuklarda ayak-ayak bileği ortezi kullanım süresini etkileyen faktörlerin incelenmesi: pilot çalışma

Year 2015, Volume: 2 Issue: 2 - Volume: 2 Issue: 2, 47 - 52, 23.07.2016

Burcu Dilek Gözde Gür Yavuz Yakut

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, gece ve yürüme ayak-ayak bileği ortezi (AFO) kullanan, serebral palsili (SP) bireylerde AFO kulanım süresini etkileyen faktörlerin incelenmesiydi. Yöntem: Çalışmamıza 3-18 yaşları arasında, AFO kullanan, SP tanılı 100 birey alındı. Bireylerin demografik özellikleri, SP tipleri, Kaba Motor Fonksiyon Sınıflandırma Sistemi’ne (KMFSS) göre fonksiyonel seviyeleri değerlendirildi. Gece ve gündüz AFO kullanan bireylerin ortezlerini günlük kullanma süreleri ve rehabilitasyon süreleri kaydedildi. Ebeveynlerin eğitim durumları ile birlikte rehabilitasyon ve SP hakkında bilgi seviyeleri sorgulandı. Bulgular: Bireylerin, gece ve yürüme ayak-ayak bileği ortezlerini günlük kullanma süreleri benzer olarak bulundu (p>0.05). SP’li bireylerin klinik özelliklerinin gece ve yürüme ayak-ayak bileği ortezleri için ayrı ayrı etkisi incelendiğinde SP tipinin yürüme AFO’su kullanım süresini etkilediği (p0.05). SP’li bireylerin kaba motor seviyelerinin gece ve gündüz ayak-ayak bileği ortezi kullanım sürelerinde etkili olmadığı bulundu (p>0.05). Ebeveynlerin SP rehabilitasyonu ile ilgili bilgi seviyelerinin yürüme ayak-ayak bileği ortezi kullanma süresini etkilediği gözlenirken (p0.05). Ebeveynlerin SP bilgi seviyelerinin gece ve yürüme ayak-ayak bileği ortezi kullanım süresini etkilemediği bulundu (p>0.05). Sonuç: Çalışmamız, yürüme ayak-ayak bileği ortezini kullanma süresini etkileyen faktörlerin ebeveynin rehabilitasyon bilgi seviyesi ve bireylerin SP tipi olduğunu gösterdi. SP’li bireylerin orteze uyumlarını sağlamak için ailelerin daha ayrıntılı bilgilendirilmesi gerektiğini düşünmekteyiz. Ortez uyumu hakkında bilgiyi sorgulayan yeni araç ve yöntemlerin geliştirilmesine ihtiyaç vardır

Keywords

Ayak ortezi, Uyum, Serebral palsi

An investigation of the duration of ankle foot orthosis’ daily usage in children with cerebral palsy: a pilot study

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of the study was to investigate the duration of daily usage of gait and night ankle foot orthoses (AFOs) in children with cerebral palsy (CP). Methods: A hundred children with CP (with 3-18 years of age) were included in the study. Demographic characteristics, CP types, and functional level according to the Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) level were evaluated. The duration of day and night usage of orthosis of the children, and the duration of rehabilitation were recorded. Parent’s education level and knowledge about rehabilitation and CP were also examined. Results: There was no difference between duration of gait AFO and night AFO (p>0.05). Clinical type of CP had an effect on daily usage duration of gait AFO (p<0.05), but no effect on night AFO (p>0.05). The GMFCS had no effect on daily usage duration of gait and night AFOs (p>0.05). Parent’s knowledge level about rehabilitation had an effect on daily usage duration of gait AFO (p<0.05), but no effect on night AFO (p>0.05). Parent’s knowledge level about CP had no effect on daily usage duration of gait and night AFOs (p>0.05). Conclusion: This study showed that parent’s knowledge level about rehabilitation and type of CP had an effect on daily usage duration. It can be concluded that parents must be instructed in detail for the compliance of orthosis. New tools for evaluating of compliance of orthosis are needed

Keywords

Foot orthoses, Compliance, Cerebral palsy

References

• 1. Bottos M, Feliciangeli A, Sciuto L, et al. Functional status of adults with cerebral palsy and implications for treatment of children. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2001;43:516-528.
• 2. Johnson MS. Aging with Cerebral Palsy: A Systematic Literature Review, A Graduate Research Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements fort he Degree of Master of Arts in Occupational Therapy. Department of Occupational Therapy. The College of St. Scholastica; 2009.
• 3. Çakır FY, lnem C. Kronik Psikotik Hastalarda Taburculuk Sonrası Takip ve Tedaviye Uyum. Düşünen Adam Psikiyatri ve Nörolojik Bilimler Dergisi. 2010;23:50-59.
• 4. Ryan SE, Campbell KA. Evaluation of a parentreport diary of the home use of assistive devices by young children with cerebral palsy. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2009;4:189-197.
• 5. O’Sullivan SB, Schmitz TJ. Physical Rehabilitation: Assessment and Treatment. 5th Ed. Philadelphia; 2007.
• 6. Mol EM, Monbaliu E, Ven M, et al. The use of night orthoses in cerebral palsy treatment: sleep disturbance in children and parental burden or not? Res Dev Disabil. 2012;33:341- 349.
• 7. Havey R, Gavin T, Patwardhan A, et al. A reliable and accurate method for measuring orthosis wearing time. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27:211-214.
• 8. Dixon JS, Bird HA. Reproducibility along a 10 cm vertical visual analogue scale. Ann Rheum Dis. 1981;40:87-89.
• 9. Palisano RJ, Rosenbaum P, Bartlett D, Livingston M. Content validity of the expanded and revised Gross Motor Function Classification System. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2008;50:249-53.
• 10. Palisano R, Rosenbaum P, Walter S, et al. Development and reliability of a system to classify gross motor function in children with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1997;39:214-223.
• 11. Bowker P, Rocca E, Arnell P, et al. A Study of the Organisation of Orthotic Services in England and Wales; Report to the Department of Health. UK, Salford: University of Salford;1992.
• 12. Jannink MJ, de Vries J, Stewart RE, et al. Questionnaire for usability evaluation of orthopaedic shoes: construction and reliability in patients with degenerative disorders of the foot. J Rehabil Med. 2004;36:242-248.
• 13. Polliack AA, Elliot S, Landsberger SE, et al. Lower extremity orthoses for children with myelomeningocele: user and orthotist perspectives. JPO. 2001;13:123-133.
• 14. Williams AE, Nester CJ. Patient perceptions of stock footwear design features. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2006;30:61-71.
• 15. Demers L, Monette M, Lapierre Y, et al. Reliability, validity, and applicability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) for adults with multiple sclerosis. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24:21-30.
• 16. Viehweger E, Robitail S, Rohon MA, et al. Measuring quality of life in cerebral palsy children. Ann Readapt Med Phys. 2008;51:119- 137.
• 17. Naslund A, Tamm M, Ericsson AK, et al. Dynamic ankle-foot orthoses as a part of treatment in children with spastic diplegia-- parents' perceptions. Physiother Res Int. 2003;8:59-68.
• 18. Erel S, Şimşek İE, Bek N, et al. Çocuk hastalarda plastik ayak –ayak bileği ortez görünümünün memnuniyet ve ortezi kabullenme üzerine etkisi. Fizyoter Rehabil. 2007;18:195-200.
• 19. Heinemann AW, Bode RK, O'Reilly C. Development and measurement properties of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey (OPUS): a comprehensive set of clinical outcome instruments. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2003;27:191- 206.
• 20. Peethambaran A. The Relationship between performance, satisfaction, and well being for patients using anterior and posterior design knee-ankle-foot orthosis. JPO. 2000;12:33-40.
• 21. Hachisuka K, Makino K, Wada F, et al. Clinical application of carbon fibre reinforced plastic leg orthosis for polio survivors and its advantages and disadvantages. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2006;30:129-135.
• 22. Kessler JI. A new flexible brace used in the Ponseti treatment of talipes equinovarus. J Pediatr Orthop B. 2008;17:247-250.
• 23. Refshauge KM, Raymond J, Nicholson G, et al. Night splinting does not increase ankle range of motion in people with Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease: a randomised, cross-over trial. Aust J Physiother. 2006;52:193-199.
• 24. Carlson WE, Vaughan CL, Damiano DL, et al. Orthotic management of gait in spastic diplegia. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;76:219-225.
• 25. Molna GE CL. Orthotics: Clinical Practice and Rehabilitation Technology, In: Redford JB BJ, Trautman P, ed. Newyork;1995:137-165.
• 26. Walter JH Jr, Ng G, Stoltz JJ. A patient satisfaction survey on prescription custommolded foot orthoses. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2004;94:363-367.