Background: Many patients with cerebral palsy present a pathologic gait pattern, which presumably induces aberrant musculoskeletal loading that interferes with natural bone growth, causing bone deformations on the long term. Botulinum toxin interventions and single-event multilevel surgeries are used to restore the gait pattern, assuming that a normal gait pattern restores musculoskeletal loading and thus prevents further bone deformation. However, it is unknown if these interventions are able to restore musculoskeletal loading. Hence, we investigated the impact of botulinum toxin injections and single-event multilevel surgery on musculoskeletal loading. Methods: Gait data collected in 93 children with bilateral cerebral palsy, which included pre- and post multi-level botulinum toxin (49 children) and single-event multilevel surgery (44 children) assessments, and 15 typically developing children were retrospectively processed using a musculoskeletal modelling workflow to calculate joint angles, moments, muscle and joint contact force magnitudes and orientations. Differences from the typically developing waveform were expressed by a root-mean square difference were compared using paired t-tests for each intervention separately (alpha <0.05). Findings: Botulinum toxin induced significant changes in the joint angles, but did not improve the muscle and joint contact forces. Single-event multilevel surgery induced significant kinematic and kinetic changes, which were associated with improved muscle and joint contact forces. Interpretation: The present results indicate that botulinum toxin injections were not able to restore normal gait kinematics nor musculoskeletal loading, whereas single-event multilevel surgery did successfully restore both. Therefore, single-event multilevel surgery might be protective against the re-occurrence of bone deformation on the longer term.

Background and purpose: To support clinical decision-making in central neurological disorders, a physical examination is used to assess responses to passive muscle stretch. However, what exactly is being assessed is expressed and interpreted in different ways. A clear diagnostic framework is lacking. Therefore, the aim was to arrive at unambiguous terminology about the concepts and measurement around pathophysiological neuromuscular response to passive muscle stretch. Methods: During two consensus meetings, 37 experts from 12 European countries filled online questionnaires based on a Delphi approach, followed by plenary discussion after rounds. Consensus was reached for agreement ≥75%. Results: The term hyper-resistance should be used to describe the phenomenon of impaired neuromuscular response during passive stretch, instead of for example ‘spasticity’ or ‘hypertonia’. From there, it is essential to distinguish non-neural (tissue-related) from neural (central nervous system related) contributions to hyper-resistance. Tissue contributions are elasticity, viscosity and muscle shortening. Neural contributions are velocity dependent stretch hyperreflexia and non-velocity dependent involuntary background activation. The term ‘spasticity’ should only be used next to stretch hyperreflexia, and ‘stiffness’ next to passive tissue contributions. When joint angle, moment and electromyography are recorded, components of hyper-resistance within the framework can be quantitatively assessed. Conclusions: A conceptual framework of pathophysiological responses to passive muscle stretch is defined. This framework can be used in clinical assessment of hyper-resistance and will improve communication between clinicians. Components within the framework are defined by objective parameters from instrumented assessment. These parameters need experimental validation in order to develop treatment algorithms based on the aetiology of the clinical phenomena.