Reflex Mechanisms for Motor Impairment in Spinal Cord Injury
Spasticity is common feature of human spinal cord injury. It contributes to motor impairment and it also promotes joint deformity in patients who have sustained such injury. The classical definition of spasticity highlights the increased resistance of a joint to externally imposed motion. This resistance is attributable largely to changes in stretch reflex excitability, and it is manifested primarily in those muscles being stretched by the motion. Under this definition, there wouldbelittle activity in muscles crossing other joints. In spinal cord injury, however, muscles innervated from distal spinal segments often exhibit little hypertonia, yet patients report the occurrence of disabling spasms. These spasms appear as coordinated patterns of muscle activation throughout the limb, involving either limb flexors or extensors. These patterns are therefore quite different from those of classical spasticity. The receptor origins and neural pathways responsible for the spasms in spinal cord injury will be addressed.
KeywordsTorque Osteoporosis Monoamine Benz Baclofen
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Baldissera, F., Hultborn, H., and Illert, M., 1981, Integration in spinal neuronal systems, in:Handbook of Physiology - The Nervous SystemBrookhart, J.M., and Mountcastle, V.B., eds., American Physiological Society, Baltimore, pp. 509–595.Google Scholar
- Eccles, R.M., and Lundberg, A., 1959, Synaptic actions in motoneurones by afferents which may evoke the flexion reflexArchives Italiennes de Biologie9, 199–221.Google Scholar
- Houk, J. C., Crago, P. E., and Rymer, W. Z., 1980, Functional properties of the golgi tendon organs, in:Spinal and Supraspinal Mechanisms of Voluntary Motor Control and LocomotionDesmedt, J. E, ed., Basel, Karger, pp. 33–43.Google Scholar
- Lance, J. W., Pathophysiology of spasticity and clinical experience with baclofen, in:Spasticity: Disordered Motor ControlFeldman, R. G., Young, R. R., and Koella, W. P., eds., Year Book, Chicago, pp. 185–203.Google Scholar