Background: Muscle spasticity is a common sequela of spinal cord injury (SCI) that may impact daily function. Spasticity dynamically varies and is an important physiologic response to illness or other stressors. The challenge for the general practitioner is in recognizing, treating, and developing an effective plan focused on the patient’s individual goals. Objective: To provide the general practitioner with a basic contextual, diagnostic, and therapeutic approach to spasticity management for individuals with neurologic injury such as SCI. Discussion: Muscle spasticity can be disabling and can be managed effectively by using a comprehensive approach. We discuss a representative case and the assessment and planning for individuals with SCI and spasticity. Through an understanding of pathophysiology, careful history taking, and physical exam, a cause for increased spasticity can be identified, such as infection, constipation, or pregnancy. Symptomatology of these triggers is often quite different in the SCI population than in the general population. Management includes the treatment of this causative stressor as well as the thoughtful management of spasticity itself. Conclusion: Muscle spasticity is dynamic and requires a patient-centered approach. The general practitioner can play a key role in recognizing and treating spasticity in an individual with SCI. Comprehensive management to meet patient and caregiver goals involves primary care providers, specialists, and allied health practitioners.

Introduction Acute Flaccid Myelitis (AFM) is a recently recognized, polio-like illness of children that can be functionally devastating. Severe cases can lead to ventilatory failure. Incomplete phrenic nerve injuries in other populations has been shown to respond to diaphragmatic stimulation. We therefore proposed an early assessment for incomplete denervation by laparoscopic direct stimulation of the diaphragm and placement of a diaphragmatic pacing system to enhance diaphragm function. Case presentation A 3 year-old girl presented with AFM with clinically and electrodiagnostically severe involvement of all four limbs and muscles of respiration. Direct stimulation of the diaphragm demonstrated contraction and a diaphragmatic stimulator was placed at 3 weeks post presentation. The patient was immediately able to tolerate short bouts of reduced ventilation settings. Electromyography via the pacing wires demonstrated intact motor units consistent with partial denervation/reinnervation in the left hemidiaphragm, and no motor units in the right hemidiaphragm. At three months, she tolerated 6 h of pacing on pressure support setting. At 5 months she demonstrated larger tidal volumes with active pacing than without. Discussion In our experience, AFM patients who require chronic ventilator support are rarely able to be weaned. Despite clinical and surface electrodiagnostic evidence of complete phrenic nerve involvement, the patient’s diaphragm responded to direct stimulation. The patient preferred pacing over non-pacing times and showed improved ventilatory ability with pacing as opposed to without, though remains ventilator-dependent. These findings support augmentation of diaphragm function and possible enhanced recovery of spontaneous function.

No abstract