Background <p>To compare the characteristics, functional levels, and comorbidities of children with ataxic cerebral palsy (CP), with those of children with other CP subtypes.</p> Methods <p>A cross-sectional study of children with CP born between 2000 and 2019 as reported in the Scandinavian national CP follow-up programmes and quality registries. Data for age, sex, levels of the Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS), the Manual Ability Classification System (MACS), the Communication Function Classification System (CFCS), epilepsy, intellectual disability, and pain were extracted.</p> Results <p>There were 302 children (3.9%) with ataxic CP and 7336 children (96.1%) with other subtypes. Children with ataxic CP differed significantly from other subtypes, with a greater proportion classified in GMFCS II (37.7% vs. 15%), MACS II (41.4% vs. 24.8%), and CFCS II (24.7% vs. 10.5%), more girls (50.7% vs. 41.7%), school-aged (47% vs. 41.6%), adolescents (33.4% vs. 25.4%), or had an intellectual disability (51.2% vs. 38.4%), but the prevalence of pain and epilepsy was similar between the subtypes.</p> Conclusions <p>Children with ataxic CP have different characteristics and functional levels than children with other subtypes. We recommend a thorough examination of motor performance, communication, and intellectual disability to meet the individual needs of children with ataxic CP.</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

Characteristics of children with ataxic cerebral palsy

  • Katina Pettersson,
  • Mette Johansen,
  • Reidun Jahnsen,
  • Elisabet Rodby-Bousquet

摘要

Background

To compare the characteristics, functional levels, and comorbidities of children with ataxic cerebral palsy (CP), with those of children with other CP subtypes.

Methods

A cross-sectional study of children with CP born between 2000 and 2019 as reported in the Scandinavian national CP follow-up programmes and quality registries. Data for age, sex, levels of the Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS), the Manual Ability Classification System (MACS), the Communication Function Classification System (CFCS), epilepsy, intellectual disability, and pain were extracted.

Results

There were 302 children (3.9%) with ataxic CP and 7336 children (96.1%) with other subtypes. Children with ataxic CP differed significantly from other subtypes, with a greater proportion classified in GMFCS II (37.7% vs. 15%), MACS II (41.4% vs. 24.8%), and CFCS II (24.7% vs. 10.5%), more girls (50.7% vs. 41.7%), school-aged (47% vs. 41.6%), adolescents (33.4% vs. 25.4%), or had an intellectual disability (51.2% vs. 38.4%), but the prevalence of pain and epilepsy was similar between the subtypes.

Conclusions

Children with ataxic CP have different characteristics and functional levels than children with other subtypes. We recommend a thorough examination of motor performance, communication, and intellectual disability to meet the individual needs of children with ataxic CP.