Scholarlink

Study design <p>Scoping review.</p> Objectives <p>Spasticity is a common and often challenging sequela of spinal cord injury (SCI) associated with pain, contractures, and reduced quality of life. While passive movement (PM) is primarily used to maintain joint mobility, clinical observations and participant reports suggest that both manual and automated techniques can contribute to the management of spasticity in SCI. However, the evidence base concerning PM’s impact on spasticity outcomes in SCI populations remains unclear. This review aims to identify the scope and synthesize the empirical evidence of PM interventions for managing spasticity in individuals with SCI.</p> Methods <p>Seven databases (Embase, Medline, PsycInfo, Web of Science, Scopus, CENTRAL, and CINAHL) were systematically searched. Eligible studies were peer-reviewed, reported original data, included adult participants (≥18 years) with SCI, presented a therapeutic intervention consisting solely of PM techniques, and reported any spasticity outcome. Data were extracted and analyzed by two independent reviewers.</p> Results <p>The initial search identified 1628 unique studies, of which 13 were included for analysis. The PM interventions included passive cycling and robotic PM interventions (n = 8), continuous passive motion (n = 4), and manual passive range of motion (PROM) (n = 1). While a minority of studies demonstrated sustained improvements in spasticity outcomes, the majority reported short-term reductions observed&#xa0;in small sample groups, single-session experiments, or using suboptimal research designs.</p> Conclusion <p>This review assembled the existing evidence on PM interventions for managing spasticity in individuals with SCI. Despite finding consistent short-term improvements, further high-quality research is needed to determine clinical efficacy and inform future rehabilitation practices.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Passive movement interventions and spasticity outcomes in individuals with spinal cord injury during rehabilitation: a scoping review

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月5日

查看全文
  • Samuel David Williamson,
  • Anders Orup Aaby,
  • Anine Overgaard Ejersbo,
  • Marianne Rahbek Vestergaard,
  • Sophie Lykkegaard Ravn

摘要

Study design

Scoping review.

Objectives

Spasticity is a common and often challenging sequela of spinal cord injury (SCI) associated with pain, contractures, and reduced quality of life. While passive movement (PM) is primarily used to maintain joint mobility, clinical observations and participant reports suggest that both manual and automated techniques can contribute to the management of spasticity in SCI. However, the evidence base concerning PM’s impact on spasticity outcomes in SCI populations remains unclear. This review aims to identify the scope and synthesize the empirical evidence of PM interventions for managing spasticity in individuals with SCI.

Methods

Seven databases (Embase, Medline, PsycInfo, Web of Science, Scopus, CENTRAL, and CINAHL) were systematically searched. Eligible studies were peer-reviewed, reported original data, included adult participants (≥18 years) with SCI, presented a therapeutic intervention consisting solely of PM techniques, and reported any spasticity outcome. Data were extracted and analyzed by two independent reviewers.

Results

The initial search identified 1628 unique studies, of which 13 were included for analysis. The PM interventions included passive cycling and robotic PM interventions (n = 8), continuous passive motion (n = 4), and manual passive range of motion (PROM) (n = 1). While a minority of studies demonstrated sustained improvements in spasticity outcomes, the majority reported short-term reductions observed in small sample groups, single-session experiments, or using suboptimal research designs.

Conclusion

This review assembled the existing evidence on PM interventions for managing spasticity in individuals with SCI. Despite finding consistent short-term improvements, further high-quality research is needed to determine clinical efficacy and inform future rehabilitation practices.