Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Kirshblum2011 PDF

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 8

Reference for the 2011 revision of the

international standards for neurological


classification of spinal cord injury
Steven C. Kirshblum 1,2, William Waring 3, Fin Biering-Sorensen 4,
Stephen P. Burns 5, Mark Johansen 6, Mary Schmidt-Read 7, William Donovan8,
Daniel E. Graves9, Amitabh Jha6, Linda Jones10, M. J. Mulcahey11,
Andrei Krassioukov12
1
Northern New Jersey SCI System, Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, West Orange, NJ, USA, 2University of
Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey-New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ, USA, 3Medical College of Wisconsin,
Milwaukee, WI, USA, 4Clinic for Spinal Cord Injuries, University of Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, Denmark,
5
Northwest Regional SCI System, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA,
USA, 6Craig Hospital, Englewood, CO, USA, 7Magee Rehabilitation Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 8University of
Texas, Houston, TX, USA, 9University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA, 10Geron Corporation, Menlo Park, CA, USA,
11
Shriners Hospital for Children, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 12International Collaboration on Repair Discoveries
(ICORD), Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

The latest revision of the International Standards for the Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury
(ISNCSCI) was available in booklet format in June 2011, and is published in this issue of the Journal of
Spinal Cord Medicine. The ISNCSCI were initially developed in 1982 to provide guidelines for the consistent
classification of the neurological level and extent of the injury to achieve reliable data for clinical care and
research studies. This revision was generated from the Standards Committee of the American Spinal Injury
Association in collaboration with the International Spinal Cord Society’s Education Committee. This article
details and explains the updates and serves as a reference for these revisions and clarifications.
Keywords: Physical examination, Neurological, Motor, Sensory, Classification, Spinal cord injuries, Manual muscle testing, International standards for the
neurological classification of spinal cord injury, ASIA impairment scale, Revisions, American spinal injury association, International spinal cord society

Introduction Spinal Cord Society (ISCoS, then known as the


The International Standards for Neurological International Medical Society of Paraplegia) endorsed
Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI) was the Standards, and with the 1996 revision, the
initially developed in 1982 as the American Spinal Standards were renamed the International Standards
Injury Association (ASIA) Standards for the for Neurological and Functional Classification of
Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injuries in Spinal Cord Injury.4 The term ‘functional’ was deleted
order to develop greater precision in the definitions used from the name in 2000.5,6 A reference manual was first
to classify spinal cord injury (SCI).1 The ASIA published in 1994, with an updated version in 2003.7
Standards defined the neurological levels and the extent In 2010, the International Standards Training
of the injury (utilizing the Frankel Scale)2 to achieve e-Learning Program (InSTeP) was developed by ASIA,
greater consistency and reliable data among centers parti- with updated recommendations for the neurological
cipating in the National SCI Statistical Center Database. examination and classification as part of a web-based
Subsequently, major revisions were made in 1990, training program that is now available online.8 InSTeP
1992, 1996, and 2000 (with reprints of the 2000 guidelines includes a six-module course designed to enable clini-
in 2002, 2006, and 2008).3 In 1992, the International cians to perform accurate and consistent neurological
examinations of individuals with SCI. These modules
include Basic Anatomy; Sensory Examination;
Correspondence to: Steven Kirshblum MD. Kessler Institute 1199 Pleasant Valley
Way. West Orange, NJ 07052, USA. Email: skirshblum@kessler-rehab.com Motor Examination; Anorectal Examination; Scoring,

© The Academy of Spinal Cord Injury Professionals, Inc. 2011


DOI 10.1179/107902611X13186000420242 The Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine 2011 VOL. 34 NO. 6 547
Kirshblum et al. Reference for the 2011 revision of the ISNCSCI

Scaling, and the ASIA Impairment Scale (AIS) Table 1 Positions for testing key muscles for grades 4 or 5
Classification; and a module on Optional Testing. C5 Elbow flexed at 90°, arm at patient’s side and forearm
Additional training courses have been developed for supinated
the performance of the International Standards examin- C6 Wrist in full extension
C7 Shoulder is in neutral rotation, adducted, and in 90° of
ation in the pediatric population (WeeSTep) as well as the flexion with elbow in 45° of flexion
Autonomic Standards e-Program. C8 Full-flexed position of the distal phalanx with the proximal
The purpose of the SCI classification standards finger joints stabilized in extended position
T1 Full-abducted position of fifth digit (of the hand)
remains unchanged from that stated 25 years ago: L2 Hip flexed to 90°
‘Accurate communication between clinicians and L3 Knee flexed to 15°
L4 Full-dorsiflexed position of ankle
researchers working with spinal cord injury patients L5 First toe fully extended
requires that standards be used in the classification of S1 Hip in neutral rotation, the knee is fully extended, and the
neurological impairment. Such standards can then be ankle in full plantar flexion
useful in clinical tools in the daily care of SCI patients,
and also can be used as a base for detailed research pro-
tocols.’9 Subsequent widespread and consistent use of the patient resisting the examiner’s force.13 Table 1
precisely defined classifications has facilitated clinical lists the specific positions for testing key muscles for
patient care as well as research in SCI medicine. Since grades 4 and 5. Standardization in performing muscle
the 2000 revision, there have been significant changes testing will allow for consistency in grading among
involving adjustments in the recommended methods examiners.
for the examination and clarifications of how to deter- 2. Defining the motor level in a patient with no correlat-
mine classification that have necessitated another ing key motor function to test (i.e. above C5, between
major revision in the Standards. T2–L1, and S2–5).
As such the 2011 ISNCSCI has been published.10,11 Anecdotally, this is a difficult concept to teach, which
These changes were substantial enough that it was deter- was supported by a low percentage of ‘correct’ answers
mined that the 2003 reference manual was not up-to- during the development of InSTeP, as well as subsequent
date and should no longer be distributed. In order to psychometric analysis of the imbedded test questions con-
give specialists the ability to understand the changes cerning motor levels with no motor function. In cases
in the International Standards, this article provides where key muscle functions are not clinically testable by
additional detail regarding the clarifications and revi- a manual muscle examination, the motor level is presumed
sions, with explanations as to why these changes to be the same as the sensory level, if testable motor func-
were made. Some of the clarifications to the ISNCSCI tion above (rostral) that level is intact (normal) as well.
have been detailed in a 2010 published review of the Some examples are provided to illustrate this point.
Example 1: If the sensory level is C4, and there is no C5
Standards.12 Changes that have been made are consist-
motor strength (or the strength is graded <3), the motor
ent with the InSTeP training program.
level is C4.
ASIA has adopted a process to review and if needed, Example 2: If the sensory level is C4, with the C5 key
to revise the ISNCSCI every 3 years. The review and muscle function strength graded as ≥3, the motor level
revision of the ISNCSCI was performed by ASIA’s would be C5. This is because the strength at C5 is ≥3
International Standards Committee with input from with the ‘muscle function’ above considered normal.
the Education Committees of ASIA and ISCoS and Presumably, if there were a C4 key muscle function it
approved by ASIA’s Board of Directors. would be graded as normal since the sensation at C4 is
intact.
Clarifications Example 3: If the sensory level is C3, with the C5 key
The clarifications of the seventh edition of the ISNCSCI muscle function strength graded as ≥3, the motor level is
booklet include the following: C3. This is because the motor level presumably at C4 is
not considered normal (since the C4 dermatome is not
1. Describing in greater detail the motor and sensory
normal), and the rule of all levels rostral needing to be
examination, including positions for motor testing to
intact is not met.
grade a muscle function as 4 or 5. Example 4: If all upper-limb key muscle functions are
Details on execution of the examination are available intact, with intact sensation through T6, the sensory level
as part of the InSTeP program.8 These clarifications as well as the motor level is recorded as T6.
were consensus driven with the goals of increasing Example 5: In a case similar to Example 4, but the T1
reproducibility and of reinforcing specific manual muscle function is graded 3 instead of 5, while T6 is still
muscle techniques, utilizing static positioning with the sensory level, the motor level is T1, as all the muscles

548 The Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine 2011 VOL. 34 NO. 6


Kirshblum et al. Reference for the 2011 revision of the ISNCSCI

above the T6 level cannot be considered normal. It is sensation at T7 bilaterally and all other sensations
important to recognize that the motor level follows the absent, one should document T7 for sensation in the
sensory level only if the rule of ‘all the key muscle functions ZPP boxes on the worksheet bilaterally and the motor
above are graded as normal’ applies. level of T6 should be placed in the ZPP box bilaterally.
Similar rules apply in the lower extremity, where L2 is Lastly, non-key muscles are not included in the ZPP.
the first lower extremity key muscle function that is In cases of an incomplete injury, the ZPP is not appli-
tested. L2 can only be considered the motor level if sen- cable and therefore ‘NA’ is recorded in the box on the
sation at L1 and more rostral is intact. worksheet.
Example 6: If the sensory level is T12, the hip flexor 4. Distinguishing between a sensory incomplete versus a
motor function (L2 key muscle) is graded as 3 bilaterally motor incomplete (AIS B from C) injury, as well as
and muscle strength of upper extremity key muscle between motor incomplete injuries (AIS C from D).
groups are graded 5/5, the motor level is T12. While L2 Specifically, one should use the motor level on each side
motor function is graded as a 3, the motor function to differentiate AIS B from C injuries, and the single
above that level (L1) is not normal (because the sensory neurological level for AIS C from D injuries when apply-
level is not normal) and thereby the sensory and motor ing the classification definitions.
level is T12.
This concept was previously documented, but was still
Example 7: If the sensory level is L2 and the hip flexor
found to cause some confusion. The following cases will
muscle function is graded as 2 with all upper extremity
key motor function graded as 5: the sensory level is L2,
help illustrate this aspect of the classification (Tables 2
and the motor level is L1. While the rule of the motor and 3).
level deferring to sensory level is utilized when there is no The example listed in Table 2 reveals a sensory level
functional motor level to test (i.e. above the L2 level), bilaterally of C5, with a motor level of C6 bilaterally.
once there is a key motor functional level to test (in this The single NLI is C5 and the patient has sensory sacral
case at L2), the motor level no longer defers to the sparing, allowing classification as an ‘incomplete
sensory level. injury’. The case can meet the criteria for a ‘motor
3. Documenting the zone of partial preservation incomplete’ injury, despite no voluntary anal contraction
(ZPP) in a situation where there is no sparing of motor (VAC), if there is motor sparing more than three levels
or sensory function below the motor and sensory levels. below the motor level on either side of the body. As the
The relevant (right and left) motor and sensory levels motor level bilaterally is C6, there would need to be
are documented in the designated area on the worksheet. motor sparing below T1 (more than three levels below
Previously, it was not clear as to what should be docu- the motor level). The case does not show this, and as
mented in the box on the worksheet when the motor such represents an AIS B classification. If, however,
and/or sensory level was the same as the neurologic one incorrectly used the NLI (C5 in this case) as the
level of injury (NLI) without any sparing. For starting point, as there is sparing more than three levels
example, a patient with a T6 NLI with a neurological below this NLI, the classification would be AIS C.
complete injury (AIS A) and no sparing of motor or This is not the proper classification. If this were an
sensory function below T6, has been categorized by acute injury, and the person were to recover (improvement
some clinicians by placing a ‘dash mark’ in the box of) normal sensory function at the C6 level, then this
for ZPP on the worksheet, while others may place patient would ultimately be reclassified as an AIS B;
‘NA’ (not applicable). The clarification is that for this showing worsening classification status despite actually
type of example, if there is no sparing below the NLI, having a small degree of neurological improvement.
then the motor and sensory levels should be documented Table 3 lists another example to illustrate this concept.
(in this case T6) in the box for ZPP. The sensory level on the right – C7; left – C6; and motor
One should note that motor function does NOT level is right – C8; and left C8. The single NLI is C6 and
follow sensory function in recording ZPP. Rather, the this represents a motor incomplete injury because of the
caudal extent of the motor ZPP must be based on presence of VAC. By using the single NLI of C6, there
the presence of voluntary muscle contraction below are 16 key muscle functions testable for AIS C versus
the motor level. While the motor level defers to the D determination, and 8 are graded as ≥3; therefore
sensory level in the regions where there is no key this case is classified as AIS D. If one were to mistakenly
motor function to test (C1–C4, T2–L1, etc.), motor use the motor level in this case of C8 (rather than the
ZPP does not defer to the sensory ZPP. Specifically, if single NLI), then only 4 of 12 muscle functions would
the NLI is T6 in a case with a neurologically complete grade ≥3, and would therefore be incorrectly classified
injury (AIS A), with impaired sparing of light touch as an AIS C.

The Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine 2011 VOL. 34 NO. 6 549


Kirshblum et al. Reference for the 2011 revision of the ISNCSCI

Table 2 Case example to differentiate AIS B versus AIS C

5. Utilizing non-key muscle functions in the AIS among examiners in documenting that the motor func-
classification. tion spared is more than three levels below the motor
This concept was included in the 2003 reference level.
manual,7 and has been controversial.12 The committee
decided that while these muscle functions are not used Revisions
in determining motor levels or scores (i.e. motor index The revisions of the standards include the following:
scoring), non-key muscles (if tested) may be used to 1. Replacing the term deep anal sensation with the term
determine sensory versus motor incomplete status deep anal pressure (DAP).
(AIS B versus C) (see Table 4 for illustration). The Prior to the development of InSTeP, there were no
reason for this is that the presence of motor function instructions provided on the technique to be used for
cannot be ignored and may be a sign of further potential this part of the examination. Consensus determined
recovery in a person with a sensory incomplete injury. that the term ‘pressure’ would reinforce the technique
This would be extremely important in inclusion/exclu- of applying gentle pressure to the anorectal wall (inner-
sion criteria for research studies or as an outcome vated by the somatosensory components of the puden-
measure in a trial designed to restore strength in dal nerve – S4/S5) or with the examiner’s distal
persons with motor complete injuries. thumb and index finger,14 as opposed to other more vig-
There is a need for more input, data, and discussion orous techniques that may potentially relay information
before this concept can be taught in a standardized by other neurological pathways (i.e. autonomic).
manner. In addition, specific levels will need to be deter- 2. Determining that if sensation is abnormal at C2, the
mined for each muscle so that there will be consistency level that should be designated is C1.

550 The Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine 2011 VOL. 34 NO. 6


Kirshblum et al. Reference for the 2011 revision of the ISNCSCI

Table 3 Case example to differentiate AIS C versus AIS D

Previous versions of the International Standards did ‘dermatomes and myotomes caudal to the sensory
not include directions on the classification if C2 is and motor levels on each side of the body that remain
abnormal. While further study is required, it was felt partially innervated’ in a neurologically complete
that this would allow for consistency amongst clinicians injury. In the previous edition of the ISNCSCI,3 the
and researchers. ZPP was determined from the NLI. This distinction is
3. Clarifying that in patients who have light touch or important when discussing the levels of sparing for
pin prick sensation at S4–S5, examination for DAP is the ZPP. For instance, in a patient who has a C5
not required. sensory level, with a C6 motor level with slight
While testing for DAP is still recommended to com- motor sparing at C7, the NLI is C5 with a ZPP
plete the worksheet, its performance in this scenario for motor of C7. If one uses the motor level as
would not change the classification as the patient the ZPP definition, this person would have one
already has a designation for a sensory incomplete motor level of sparing. If using the NLI as the
injury. In this situation a digital rectal examination is definition, then C7 represents two levels of sparing. It
still required, however, to test for motor sparing (i.e. was felt that the updated classification more accurately
voluntary anal sphincter contraction). describes the sparing for a person with a complete
4. Defining that the ZPP in patients with a neurologi- injury.
cally complete injury (AIS A) has been revised to be con- 5. Updating some of the figures and adjusting the work-
sistent with InSTeP. sheet or ease of use.
Specifically, the method used to determine the levels The graph for the muscle innervations (Fig. 1) and
of the ZPP has been changed to include the the worksheet (Fig. 2) were updated. Updates on the

The Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine 2011 VOL. 34 NO. 6 551


Kirshblum et al. Reference for the 2011 revision of the ISNCSCI

Table 4 Utilizing non-key muscles for AIS scoring

Figure 1 Schematic depiction of innervation of each of three key muscles by two nerve segments.

worksheet include changing ‘Deep Anal Sensation’ to The ISNCSCI worksheet remains available on the
‘Deep Anal Pressure’, the addition of a box to enter ASIA website (http://www.asia-spinalinjury.org/publi
the ‘Single Neurological Level’ and a description for cations/59544_sc_Exam_Sheet_r4.pdf ) and can be
the ZPP. used/downloaded without permission or cost.

552 The Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine 2011 VOL. 34 NO. 6


Kirshblum et al. Reference for the 2011 revision of the ISNCSCI

Figure 2

The Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine 2011 VOL. 34 NO. 6 553


Kirshblum et al. Reference for the 2011 revision of the ISNCSCI

Conclusion for Neurological and Functional Classification of Spinal Cord


Injury patients (Revised). Chicago, IL: American Spinal Injury
This article serves as a readily available reference for Association; 1996.
clinicians and researchers to accompany the 2011 5 American Spinal Injury Association/International Medical
Society of Paraplegia International Standards for Neurological
ISNCSCI.10,11 The electronic modules of InSTeP are and Functional Classification of Spinal Cord Injury patients.
intended to provide details on the execution of the American Spinal Injury Association. Chicago, IL; 2000.
examination and classification techniques.8 The 6 Marino RJ, Barros T, Biering-Sorensen F, Burns SP, Donovan
WH, Graves DE, et al. International standards for neurological
Committee recognizes that there will always be some classification of spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med 2003;
cases of SCI that do not seem to ‘fit’ the ISNCSCI. 26(suppl. 1):S50–6.
7 American Spinal Injury Association Reference manual for the
However, the International Standards classify the vast International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal
majority of cases adequately. The International Cord Injury. Chicago, IL: American Spinal Injury Association;
2003.
Standards Committee welcomes correspondence that 8 American Spinal Injury Association ASIA Learning Center.
raises questions, offers constructive criticism, or pro- [accessed 2011 Oct 5]. Available from www.asialearningcenter.com.
9 American Spinal Injury Association International Standards
vides new empirical data that are relevant for further for Neurological and Functional Classification of Spinal Cord
refinements and improvements in the reliability and Injury patients. American Spinal Injury Association. Chicago,
validity of the International Standards. IL; 1987.
10 International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal
Cord Injury 2011 Revision. J Spinal Cord Med 2011;34(6):535–46.
11 International Standards for the Neurological Classification of
References Spinal Cord Injury Revised 2011. (Booklet). Atlanta, GA:
1 American Spinal Injury Association Standards for neurological American Spinal Injury Association.
classification of spinal injured patients. Chicago, IL: ASIA; 1982. 12 Waring WP III, Biering-Sorensen F, Burns S, Donovan W, Graves
2 Frankel HL, Hancock DO, Hyslop G, Melzak J, Michaelis LS, D, Jha A, et al. 2009 review and revisions of the international stan-
Ungar GH, et al. The value of postural reduction in the initial dards for the neurological classification of spinal cord injury.
management of closed injuries in the spine with paraplegia and tet- J Spinal Cord Med 2010;33(4):346–52.
raplegia. Paraplegia 1969;7:179–92. 13 Daniels L, Worthingham C. Muscle testing: techniques of manual
3 American Spinal Injury Association International standards for examination. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA, Saunders; 1972.
neurological classification of spinal cord injury. Atlanta, GA; 14 Vogel LC, Samdani A, Chafetz R, Gaughan J, Betz R, Mulcahey
revised 2000; Reprinted 2008. MJ. Intra-rater agreement of the anorectal exam and classification
4 American Spinal Injury Association/International Medical of injury severity in children with spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord
Society of Paraplegia (ASIA/IMSOP) International Standards 2009;47(9):687–91.

554 The Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine 2011 VOL. 34 NO. 6

You might also like