Assessment of gross motor function development in children with cerebral palsy by nonlinear mixed effect model

SHI Wei,DING Jun-jie,YANG Hong,LIAO Yuan-gui,ZHU Mo,HOU Fang-hua,WANG Yi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1673-5501.2012.04.002

2012-01-01

Abstract:Objective To describe the patterns of gross motor development of children with cerebral palsy ( CP) in each level of the Gross Motor Function Classification System ( GMFCS) using nonlinear mixed effect model,as a basis for planning clinical management. Methods Patients with CP were enrolled from 7 rehabilitation centers in Shanghai form August 2000 to December 2007. Severity of CP was based solely on GMFCS level and motor function was assessed with Gross Motor Function Measure-66 ( GMFM-66) . The stable limit model was used to make the gross motor development curve for children in each of the 5 GMFCS levels. The stable limit model has two parameters,corresponding to limit of motor function and the rate which can transforms to age-90. Age-90 means the age at which children are expected to achieve 90% of their predicted limit in GMFM-66. In addition,the results of our study were compared with those of Canada study. Results A total of 228 children ( 152 males,76 females) with CP were enrolled in the study. Types of CP in these children were spastic quadriplegia ( n = 63) ,spastic diplegia ( n = 87) ,spastic hemiplegia ( n = 48) ,athetotic ( n = 11) ,dystonia ( n = 4) and ataxic ( n = 11) . Based on a total of 986 GMFM assessments ( 4. 32 assessments per child) ,distinct motor development curves were constructed. The limit of GMFM-66 in GMFCS Ⅰ - Ⅴ level was 81. 2,62. 4,52. 9,40. 8 and 24. 4 scores,the corresponding age-90 was 3. 8,2. 7,2. 1,2. 0 and 1. 5 years respectively. GMFM-66 limit in GMFCS level Ⅰ and Ⅱ of our study was lower than that in Canada study,however GMFM-66 limit in GMFCS level Ⅲ - Ⅴ was closer to that in Canada study. Moreover,the corresponding age-90 in each 5 levels of GMFCS in our study was lower than that in Canada study. Conclusions The gross motor development more quickly reached its limit in GMFCS level Ⅰ and Ⅱ, however the limit of GMFM-66 was lower than that in Canada study. More attention should be paid to the patients younger than 4 years to plan intervention.