%0 Journal Article %1 Sanders2006 %A Sanders, James O %A McConnell, Sharon L %A King, Ron %A Lanford, Alice %A Montpetit, Kathleen %A Gates, Philip %A Rich, Margaret M %A Shepherd, Karin %A Cupp, Tim %A Haynes, Richard %A Bush, Patricia %A Tahir, Fares %A Santiago, Julius %A Lighter, Donald E %A Smrcina, Cathy %A Niederpruem, Mark L %A McDonald, Craig %A Curry, Darryl B %D 2006 %J J Pediatr Orthop %K Activities of Daily Living; Adolescent; Adult; Cerebral Palsy; Child; Child, Preschool; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Infant; Motor Activity; Orthopedic Procedures; Prospective Time Factors; Treatment Outcome %N 4 %P 542--546 %R 10.1097/01.bpo.0000226272.78330.bb %T A prospective evaluation of the WeeFIM in patients with cerebral palsy undergoing orthopaedic surgery. %U http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.bpo.0000226272.78330.bb %V 26 %X PURPOSE: Although frequently used in pediatric rehabilitation settings, the WeeFIM has not been tested in surgical pediatric orthopaedic patients. METHODS: The WeeFIM was administered to patients with surgical cerebral palsy at defined intervals preoperatively and at both 6 and 12 months postoperatively. The age-adjusted change scores from baseline to follow-up were tested both parametrically and nonparametrically. RESULTS: Four hundred sixty-eight patients had baseline evaluations. There were 161 six-month follow-up assessments and 108 twelve-month follow-up assessments. The baseline WeeFIM was able to separate children with different patterns of cerebral palsy. Hemiplegic patients had higher scores than diplegic and tetraplegic patients. Overall age-adjusted scores were improved at both 6 (mean increase 2.0) and 12 months (mean increase 2.2). The instrument showed significant ceiling effects for diplegic and hemiplegic patients with lower or upper extremity surgery and limited responsiveness for lower extremity surgery in tetraplegic patients. Parametrically, it showed improvements in mobility for both rhizotomy and tetraplegic upper extremity surgery. Nonparametric tests were not significant for rhizotomy mobility improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Although the WeeFIM adequately reflects the severity of neurological involvement in pediatric orthopaedic patients with cerebral palsy, it has a significant ceiling effect in diplegic and hemiplegic patients limiting responsiveness and lacks content validity for tetraplegic patients. The instrument may have some use in tetraplegic patients with upper extremity surgery and in rhizotomy patients. We recommend against its general use for orthopaedic surgery in patients with cerebral palsy lower extremity or spine surgery and in hemiplegic patients with upper extremity surgery.

@article{Sanders2006, abstract = {PURPOSE: Although frequently used in pediatric rehabilitation settings, the WeeFIM has not been tested in surgical pediatric orthopaedic patients. METHODS: The WeeFIM was administered to patients with surgical cerebral palsy at defined intervals preoperatively and at both 6 and 12 months postoperatively. The age-adjusted change scores from baseline to follow-up were tested both parametrically and nonparametrically. RESULTS: Four hundred sixty-eight patients had baseline evaluations. There were 161 six-month follow-up assessments and 108 twelve-month follow-up assessments. The baseline WeeFIM was able to separate children with different patterns of cerebral palsy. Hemiplegic patients had higher scores than diplegic and tetraplegic patients. Overall age-adjusted scores were improved at both 6 (mean increase 2.0) and 12 months (mean increase 2.2). The instrument showed significant ceiling effects for diplegic and hemiplegic patients with lower or upper extremity surgery and limited responsiveness for lower extremity surgery in tetraplegic patients. Parametrically, it showed improvements in mobility for both rhizotomy and tetraplegic upper extremity surgery. Nonparametric tests were not significant for rhizotomy mobility improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Although the WeeFIM adequately reflects the severity of neurological involvement in pediatric orthopaedic patients with cerebral palsy, it has a significant ceiling effect in diplegic and hemiplegic patients limiting responsiveness and lacks content validity for tetraplegic patients. The instrument may have some use in tetraplegic patients with upper extremity surgery and in rhizotomy patients. We recommend against its general use for orthopaedic surgery in patients with cerebral palsy lower extremity or spine surgery and in hemiplegic patients with upper extremity surgery.}, added-at = {2014-07-19T21:12:38.000+0200}, author = {Sanders, James O and McConnell, Sharon L and King, Ron and Lanford, Alice and Montpetit, Kathleen and Gates, Philip and Rich, Margaret M and Shepherd, Karin and Cupp, Tim and Haynes, Richard and Bush, Patricia and Tahir, Fares and Santiago, Julius and Lighter, Donald E and Smrcina, Cathy and Niederpruem, Mark L and McDonald, Craig and Curry, Darryl B}, biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/27a0b7b1b520aa6e73beac871ae598647/ar0berts}, doi = {10.1097/01.bpo.0000226272.78330.bb}, groups = {public}, interhash = {21177019a7feed02352d61c591ca6f83}, intrahash = {7a0b7b1b520aa6e73beac871ae598647}, journal = {J Pediatr Orthop}, keywords = {Activities of Daily Living; Adolescent; Adult; Cerebral Palsy; Child; Child, Preschool; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Infant; Motor Activity; Orthopedic Procedures; Prospective Time Factors; Treatment Outcome}, number = 4, pages = {542--546}, pii = {01241398-200607000-00022}, pmid = {16791077}, timestamp = {2014-07-19T21:12:38.000+0200}, title = {A prospective evaluation of the WeeFIM in patients with cerebral palsy undergoing orthopaedic surgery.}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.bpo.0000226272.78330.bb}, username = {ar0berts}, volume = 26, year = 2006 }