Evaluation of upper extremity function after spinal cord injury using GRASSP

Czech version

Authors: Kříž J.; Krahulcová A.; Balková J.
Authors‘ workplace: Spinální jednotka při Klinice rehabilitace a tělovýchovného lékařství 2. LF UK a FN Motol, Praha
Published in: Rehabil. fyz. Lék., 30, 2023, No. 3, pp. 138-146.
Category: Original Papers
doi: https://doi.org/10.48095/ccrhfl2023138

Overview

Introduction: Cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) leads, among other impairments, to dysfunction of the upper limbs. It significantly limits the ability to self-care and increases dependence on others. Every improvement, even the smallest, can fundamentally affect the quality of life. The Graded Redefined Assessment of Strength, Sensibility and Prehension (GRASSP) test was created to document changes in the upper limbs in post-traumatic development. Aim: To introduce the GRASSP to the general professional public and to evaluate the relationship between this examination and other standardized tests. Method: The study group consisted of 52 patients with acute cervical spinal cord injury hospitalized at the Spinal Cord Unit in University Hospital Motol between 2019 and 2021. In addition to the GRASSP, standardized Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM) test and upper extremity motor score were used for evaluation. GRASSP deals with four domains – muscle strength, sensitivity, grasp ability, and grasp execution. Results: The greatest differences between the GRASSP examination at admission and discharge of patients were found in the domains of grasp ability and execution. These changes corresponded well with the self-care domain of the SCIM. The correlation between the GRASSP and SCIM tests generally increased within the time since injury. Conclusion: GRASSP is a suitable test for evaluating even minor changes in the upper limbs in patients after cervical SCI, which can be used in both acute and chronic stages of SCI.

Keywords:

evaluation – spinal cord injury – tetraplegia – tetraparesis – GRASSP

Sources

1. Snoek GJ, IJzerman MJ, Hermens HJ et al. Survey of the needs of patients with spinal cord injury: impact and priority for improvement in hand function in tetraplegics. Spinal Cord 2004; 42(9): 526–532. doi: 10.1038/sj.sc.3101638.

2. Penrod LE, Hegde SK, Ditunno JF Jr. Age effect on prognosis for functional recovery in acute, traumatic central cord syndrome. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1990; 71(12): 963–968.

3. Anderson KD. Targeting recovery: priorities of the spinal cord-injured population. J Neurotrauma 2004; 21(10): 1371–1383. doi: 10.1089/neu.2004.21.1371.

4. Waters RL, Adkins RH, Yakura JS et al. Motor and sensory recovery following complete tetraplegia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993; 74(3): 242–247.

5. Waters RL, Adkins RH, Yakura JS et al. Motor and sensory recovery following incomplete tetraplegia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994; 75(3): 306–311. doi: 10.1016/0003-9993(94)90034-5.

6. Kirshblum SC, Burns SP, Biering-Sorensen F et al. International standards for neurological classification of spinal cord injury (revised 2011). J Spinal Cord Med 2011; 34(6): 535–546. doi: 10.1179/204577211X13207446293695.

7. Catz A, Itzkovich M, Tesio L et al. A multicenter international study on the Spinal Cord Independence Measure, version III: Rasch psychometric validation. Spinal Cord 2007; 45(4): 275–291. doi: 10.1038/sj.sc.3101960.

8. Kalsi-Ryan S, Curt A, Fehlings MG et al. Assessment of the hand in tetraplegia using the Graded Redefined Assessment of Strength, Sensibility and Prehension (GRASSP): impairment versus function. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil 2009; 14(4): 34–46. doi: 10.1310/sci1404-34.

9. Kriz J, Kulakovska M, Davidova H et al. Incidence of acute spinal cord injury in the Czech Republic: a prospective epidemiological study 2006–2015. Spinal Cord 2017; 55(9): 870–874. doi: 10.1038/sc.2017.20.

10. Kalsi-Ryan S, Chan C, Verrier M et al. The Graded Redefined Assessment of Strength Sensibility and Prehension version 2 (GV2): Psychometric properties. J Spinal Cord Med 2019; 42 (Suppl 1): 149–157. doi: 10.1080/10790268.2019.1616950.

11. Velstra IM, Curt A, Frotzler A et al. Changes in strength, sensation, and prehension in acute cervical spinal cord injury: european multicenter responsiveness study of the GRASSP. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2015; 29(8): 755–766. doi: 10.1177/1545968314565466.

12. Kalsi-Ryan S, Beaton D, Ahn H et al. Responsiveness, sensitivity, and minimally detectable difference of the Graded Redefined Assessment of Strength, Sensibility, and Prehension, version 1.0. J Neurotrauma 2016; 33(3): 307–314. doi: 10.1089/neu.2015.4217.

13. Kalsi-Ryan S, Albisser U, Fehlings M et al. GRASSP version 2: a comprehensive SCI upper limb outcome measure. Annual Meeting of the American Spinal Injury Association; May 2018; Rochester, USA.

14. Jung HY, Lee J, Shin HI. The natural course of passive tenodesis grip in individuals with spinal cord injury with preserved wrist extension power but paralyzed fingers and thumbs. Spinal Cord 2018; 56(9): 900–906. doi: 10.1038/s41393-018-0137-4.

15. Velstra IM, Bolliger M, Tanadini LG et al. Prediction and stratification of upper limb function and self-care in acute cervical spinal cord injury with the Graded Redefined Assessment of Strength, Sensibility, and Prehension (GRASSP). Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2014; 28(7): 632–642. doi: 10.1177/1545968314521695.

16. Velstra IM, Bolliger M, Krebs J et al. Predictive value of upper limb muscles and grasp patterns on functional outcome in cervical spinal cord injury. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2016; 30(4): 295–306. doi: 10.1177/1545968315593806.

17. Kramer JL, Lammertse DP, Schubert M et al. Relationship between motor recovery and independence after sensorimotor-complete cervical spinal cord injury. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2012; 26(9): 1064–1071. doi: 10.1177/1545968312447306.

18. Wirth B, van Hedel HJ, Kometer B et al. Changes in activity after a complete spinal cord injury as measured by the Spinal Cord Independence Measure II (SCIM II). Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2008; 22(3): 279–287. Erratum in: Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2008; 22(6): 769.

19. Rudhe C, van Hedel HJ. Upper extremity function in persons with tetraplegia: relationships between strength, capacity, and the spinal cord independence measure. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2009; 23(5): 413–421. doi: 10.1177/1545968308331143.

20. Marino RJ, Sinko R, Bryden A et al. Comparison of Responsiveness and Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the Capabilities of Upper Extremity Test (CUE-T) and the Graded Redefined Assessment of Strength, Sensibility and Prehension (GRASSP). Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil 2018; 24(3): 227–238. doi: 10.1310/sci2403-227.

Labels

Physiotherapist, university degree Rehabilitation Sports medicine

Functional examination and therapy in primary coccygeal syndrome

Effect of cognitive decline on walking speed in older people

The effect of minimalist footwear on the biomechanics of human gait

Targeted physiotherapy in a patient after implantation of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator with chronic pain in the ipsilateral shoulder and arm – a case report

Article was published in

Rehabilitation and Physical Medicine

2023 Issue 3