Comparison Of Kinesthetic Ability Between Children With And Without Spastic Hemiplegia

Introduction
Kinesthesia is referred to the sense mechanism of movement and position, guided through information provided from
the muscles, joints and skin [1]. The information collected through the above mechanisms is elaborated from the very
early stages of life into the brain, leading to the development of the fundamental motor patterns and eventually to the
gross motor skills [2]. The fundamental gross motor skills are used, in turn, for learning, executing and controlling of
more advanced, athletic motor skills, in the future [3]. Neurological damage into the brain may result in reduced
kinesthetic ability and the restoration of abnormal motor patterns [4]. Children with CP, in turn, with known
neurological damage, have restored abnormal fundamental motor patterns and exhibit known deficits in fundamental
gross motor skills. These deficits may, in turn, be associated with low kinesthetic ability [5]. Therefore, the present
study was designed to examine the kinesthetic deficits of CP children, with spastic hemiplegia (SH).

Method
We examined the differences in kinesthetic ability between 15 children with SH (experimental) and 15 children, match
paired according to age and gender, without SH (control). Groups were examined in both hands, at the elbow joint.
Specifically, we examined the interaction between disability and side, with respect to the following kinesthetic
measures: a) passive reproduction of movement (PRM), b) detection of passive movement (DPM) and c) detection of
direction of passive movement (DDPM). The Kin Com 125 AP isokinetic dynamometer Configuration Chattanooga,
was used for the purposes of the study. Two separate 2x2 Anova’s were used for statistical analysis.

Results
Significant interaction were found between disability and side, with respect to the (PRM) and (DPM). The interaction
was attributed to the kinesthetic deficits, at both sides, of the hemiplegic group compared to the control group. The
extend of differences, however, was wider for the affected of SH Vs non dominant of non SH comparison, as opposed
to the non affected of SH Vs dominant of non SH comparison. No significant interaction or main effects were evident
for the detection of direction of passive movement (DDPM). Significant relationship was found between spasticity and PRM scores.

Discussion
Results from the present study indicated the importance of providing kinesthetic stimulation and practice, possibly
through physical education and rehabilitation, to both sides for children with SH. Replication study is necessary.

References
[1]. McCloskey DI. (1978). Physiological Reviews, 58, 763-820
[2]. Schmidt RA. (1988). Motor control and Learning. Champaign IL: Human Kinetics
[3]. Koutsouki D. (1998) Physical Disabilities and Development: Theory and Methods. Athens, Greece: Athlotipo
[4]. Wann JP. (1991). Neuropsychologia 29: 1095-1106.
[5]. Lehman O. G. et al. (1985). Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 27: 223-230

NOTA: O texto com a iconografia está no anexo

Arquivo