Ayşe LİVANELİOĞLU, Akmer MUTLU, Tülay TARSUSLU, Mintaze Kerem GÜNEL

Serebral paralizili çocuklarda ev egzersiz programının etkinliğinin incelenmesi

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, serebral paralizili (SP) çocuklarda ev egzersiz programının etkinliğini araştırmaktı. Gereç ve Yöntem: Serebral paralizi tanısı konmuş, yaşları 2-15 arasında değişen ve yaş ortalamaları 5,22±4,40 yıl olan toplam 273 olgunun klinik ve aileye ait bilgileri alındı. Motor gelişim düzeyleri Kaba Motor İşlev Sınıflandırma Sistemi -GMFCS- kullanılarak incelendi. Olguların 183’ü (% 67,03) spastik, 36’sı (% 13,18) atetoid, 35’i (% 12,82) hipotonik, 19’u (% 6,95) ise ataksik SP idi. Ayrıca ekstremite dağılımına göre; 147 (% 53,84)’si diparetik, 94 (% 34,43)’ü kuadriparetik, 32 (% 11,72)’si hemiparetikti. Her çocuğa motor gelişim seviyesine uygun olarak Bobath Nörogelişimsel Tedavi yöntemine dayalı uygun ev egzersiz programı ve aileye eğitim verildi. Altı ay sonra olguların motor gelişim düzeyleri tekrar değerlendirildi. Bulgular: GMFCS sınıflamasına göre ev programı öncesi motor gelişim düzeyleri ile ev programı verildikten sonraki düzeyleri arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark bulundu (p

The evaluation of home exercise program efficiency in children with cerebral palsy

Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate the efficiency of home exercise programs of children with cerebral palsy (CP). Material and Method: Clinical data and information about families of 273 children with CP aged between 2-15, mean of 5,22±4,40 years, were assessed according to the motor developmental level using Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS). One-hundred-eighty-three (67,03%) of the subjects were spastic, 19 (6,95%) ataxic, 35 (12,82%) hypotonic and 36 (13,18%) athetoid. One-hundred-forty-seven-were (53,84%) diparetic, 94 (34,43%) quadriparetic and 32 (11,72%) hemiparetic. The families were educated about the home exercise program for the children to perform at home. After six months, all of the children were reassessed according to GMFCS.Results: Before the home exercise program was started only 48 patients (17,59%)could walk independently. After the home program was applied the number of patients who walked independently raised to 64 (23,45%). Depending on GMFCS, the difference between before and after home program was found statistically significant (p

PDF

___

1. Blair E, Watson L. Epidemiology of Cerebral Palsy. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2006; 11: 117-25.
2. Koman LA, Smith PB, Shilt JS. Cerebral Palsy. Lancet 2004; 363: 1619-31.
3. Kanda T, Pidcock FS, Hayakawa K, Yamori Y, Shikata Y. Motor outcome differences between two groups of children with spstic diplegia who received different ıntensities of early onset physiotherapy followed for 5 years. Brain Dev 2004; 26: 118-26.
4. Albright A. Spasticity and movement disorders in cerebral palsy. J Child Neurol 1996; 11: 1-4.
5. Serdaroglu A, Cansu A, Ozkan S, Tezcan S. Prevalence of cerebral palsy in Turkish children between the ages of 2 and 16 years. Dev Med Child Neurol 2006; 48: 413-6.
6. Kerem M, Livanelioğlu A. Serebral paralizi’li çocuklarda nörogelişimsel tedavi yaklaşımının motor gelişim üzerine etkisi. Fizyoterapi ve Rehabilitasyon 2002; 13: 117-24.
7. Kerem M, Livanelioglu A, Topcu M. Effects of Johnstone pressure splints combined with neurodevelopmental therapy on spasticity and cutaneous sensory inputs in spastic cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol 2001; 43: 307-13.
8. Bobath B, Bobath K. Motor development in the different types of cerebral palsy. London, Tunbridge: The White Friars Press Ltd 1981; 34-48.
9. Donovan TJ, Reddihough DS, Court JM, Doyle LW. Health literature for parents of children with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol 1989; 31: 489-95.
10. Rogers JP, Vanderbilt SH. Coordinated treatment in cerebral palsy-where are we today? J Prosthet Orthot 1990; 2: 68-81.
11. Lettinga AT, Siemonsma PC, Veen M. Entwinement of theory and practice in physiotherapy. Physiotherapy 1999; 85: 476-90.
12. Kerem M, Livanelioğlu A, Meriç A. Serebral paralizili çocuklarda fizyoterapist tarafından yürütülen rehabilitasyonla ev egzersiz programına dayalı rehabilitasyonun motor gelişim seviyesi üzerine etkilerinin karşılaştırılması. Türkiye Klinikleri Fiziksel Tıp ve Rehabilitasyon Dergisi 2001; 1: 167-72.
13. Landsman GH. What Evidence, Whose evidence?: physical therapy in New York State’s clinical practice guideline and in the lives of mothers of disabled children. Soc Sci Med 2005; 1-11.
14. Hamblin T, Musa I. Family-Based rehabilitation for children with cerebral palsy: a koklata project. Physiotherapy 2006; 92: 55-60.
15. Jones LK, Dunifon R. Children’s home environments:Understanding the role of family structure changes. J of Family Issues 2004; 25: 3-28.
16. King S, Teplicky R, King G, Rosenbaum P. Family- centered service for children with cerebral palsy and their families: a review of the literature. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2004; 11: 78-88.
17. Sade A, Otman AS. Serebral paralizide değerlendirme ve tedavi yöntemleri. Ankara: Volkan Matbaacılık, 1991; 54-101.
18. Palisano R, Rosenbaum P, Walter S, Russel D, Wood E. Development and reliability of a system to classify gross motor function in children with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol 1997; 39: 214-23.
19. Milner J, Bungay C, Jelinek D, Hall DMB. Needs of disabled children and their families. Arch Dis Child 1996; 75: 399-404.
20. Smith JC, Nastro MA. The effect of occupational therapy intervention on mothers of children with cerebral palsy. Am J of Occup Ther 1993; 47: 811-17.
21. Mckay M, Hensey O. From the other side: parent’s views of their early contacts with health professionals. Child Care Health Dev 1990; 16: 373-81.
22. Palmer FB, Shapiro BK, Wachtel RC. The effects of physical therapy on cerebral palsy. N Eng J Med 1988; 318: 803-8.
23. Michaud LJ. Prescribing therapy services for children with motor disabilities. Pediatrics 2004;113: 1836-8.