Trunk control status in children with neuromuscular disorders and typically developing children: is there a measurable difference?

Trunk control status in children with neuromuscular disorders and typically developing children: is there a measurable difference? | medRxiv /* */ /* */ <!-- <!-- /*! * yepnope1.5.4 * (c) WTFPL, GPLv2 */ (function(a,b,c){function d(a){return"[object Function]"==o.call(a)}function e(a){return"string"==typeof a}function f(){}function g(a){return!a||"loaded"==a||"complete"==a||"uninitialized"==a}function h(){var a=p.shift();q=1,a?a.t?m(function(){("c"==a.t?B.injectCss:B.injectJs)(a.s,0,a.a,a.x,a.e,1)},0):(a(),h()):q=0}function i(a,c,d,e,f,i,j){function k(b){if(!o&&g(l.readyState)&&(u.r=o=1,!q&&h(),l.onload=l.onreadystatechange=null,b)){"img"!=a&&m(function(){t.removeChild(l)},50);for(var d in y[c])y[c].hasOwnProperty(d)&&y[c][d].onload()}}var j=j||B.errorTimeout,l=b.createElement(a),o=0,r=0,u={t:d,s:c,e:f,a:i,x:j};1===y[c]&&(r=1,y[c]=[]),"object"==a?l.data=c:(l.src=c,l.type=a),l.width=l.height="0",l.onerror=l.onload=l.onreadystatechange=function(){k.call(this,r)},p.splice(e,0,u),"img"!=a&&(r||2===y[c]?(t.insertBefore(l,s?null:n),m(k,j)):y[c].push(l))}function j(a,b,c,d,f){return q=0,b=b||"j",e(a)?i("c"==b?v:u,a,b,this.i++,c,d,f):(p.splice(this.i++,0,a),1==p.length&&h()),this}function k(){var a=B;return a.loader={load:j,i:0},a}var l=b.documentElement,m=a.setTimeout,n=b.getElementsByTagName("script")[0],o={}.toString,p=[],q=0,r="MozAppearance"in l.style,s=r&&!!b.createRange().compareNode,t=s?l:n.parentNode,l=a.opera&&"[object Opera]"==o.call(a.opera),l=!!b.attachEvent&&!l,u=r?"object":l?"script":"img",v=l?"script":u,w=Array.isArray||function(a){return"[object Array]"==o.call(a)},x=[],y={},z={timeout:function(a,b){return b.length&&(a.timeout=b[0]),a}},A,B;B=function(a){function b(a){var a=a.split("!"),b=x.length,c=a.pop(),d=a.length,c={url:c,origUrl:c,prefixes:a},e,f,g;for(f=0;f<d;f++)g=a[f].split("="),(e=z[g.shift()])&&(c=e(c,g));for(f=0;f<b;f++)c=x[f](c);return c}function g(a,e,f,g,h){var i=b(a),j=i.autoCallback;i.url.split(".").pop().split("?").shift(),i.bypass||(e&&(e=d(e)?e:e[a]||e[g]||e[a.split("/").pop().split("?")[0]]),i.instead?i.instead(a,e,f,g,h):(y[i.url]?i.noexec=!0:y[i.url]=1,f.load(i.url,i.forceCSS||!i.forceJS&&"css"==i.url.split(".").pop().split("?").shift()?"c":c,i.noexec,i.attrs,i.timeout),(d(e)||d(j))&&f.load(function(){k(),e&&e(i.origUrl,h,g),j&&j(i.origUrl,h,g),y[i.url]=2})))}function h(a,b){function c(a,c){if(a){if(e(a))c||(j=function(){var a=[].slice.call(arguments);k.apply(this,a),l()}),g(a,j,b,0,h);else if(Object(a)===a)for(n in m=function(){var b=0,c;for(c in a)a.hasOwnProperty(c)&&b++;return b}(),a)a.hasOwnProperty(n)&&(!c&&!--m&&(d(j)?j=function(){var a=[].slice.call(arguments);k.apply(this,a),l()}:j[n]=function(a){return function(){var b=[].slice.call(arguments);a&&a.apply(this,b),l()}}(k[n])),g(a[n],j,b,n,h))}else!c&&l()}var h=!!a.test,i=a.load||a.both,j=a.callback||f,k=j,l=a.complete||f,m,n;c(h?a.yep:a.nope,!!i),i&&c(i)}var i,j,l=this.yepnope.loader;if(e(a))g(a,0,l,0);else if(w(a))for(i=0;i (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];var j=d.createElement(s);var dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.src='//www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;j.type='text/javascript';j.async=true;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-P4HH5NV'); Skip to main content Home About Submit ALERTS / RSS Search for this keyword Advanced Search Trunk control status in children with neuromuscular disorders and typically developing children: is there a measurable difference? View ORCID Profile Tania E. Sakanaka , View ORCID Profile Penelope B. Butler , View ORCID Profile Richa Kulshrestha , View ORCID Profile Tracey Willis , View ORCID Profile Ian D. Loram doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.03.12.25322083 Tania E. Sakanaka a Department of Life Sciences, Manchester Metropolitan University , Manchester, UK Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Tania E. Sakanaka For correspondence: taniasakanaka{at}gmail.com Penelope B. Butler a Department of Life Sciences, Manchester Metropolitan University , Manchester, UK Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Penelope B. Butler Richa Kulshrestha b The Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital , Oswestry, UK Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Richa Kulshrestha Tracey Willis b The Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital , Oswestry, UK c Chester Medical School, University of Chester , Chester, UK Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Tracey Willis Ian D. Loram a Department of Life Sciences, Manchester Metropolitan University , Manchester, UK Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Ian D. Loram Abstract Full Text Info/History Metrics Data/Code Preview PDF Abstract Aim To test sensitivity of the Segmental Assessment of Trunk Control (SATCo) to changes in neutral vertical (NV) head and trunk control in children with neuromuscular disorders (NMD) and compared with typically developing (TD) children. Methods In this observational cross-sectional study, SATCo was applied in 19 children with NMD (10y6m(3y7m), 2 female) and 19 TD children (7y10m(4y12m), 6 female). Statistical differences between condition (NMD and TD), segment (seven trunk segments), and control type (static, active, and reactive control), and relationship between age and SATCo outcomes were analysed with linear mixed-effects models (LME). Results SATCo scores were measurably different between conditions (F (1,39.6) =151.0,p<.001), segments (F (6,138.3) =23.3,p<.001), control type (F (2,33.0) =6.3,p=.005), and interactions condition segment (F (6,138.3) =23.3,p<.001) and condition control type (F (2,33.0) =6.3,p=.005). A significant relationship between decreasing active control and increasing age in 10 children with Duchenne muscular dystrophy confirmed measurable decline in trunk control following diagnosis. Interpretation The results showed that SATCo is sensitive to differences in trunk control status in NMD. While still ambulatory, children with NMD presented already a measurable trunk control deficit at varying segments. SATCo has potential as an outcome measure for therapeutic interventions or effectiveness of treatments promoting NV trunk control in children with NMD and needs further study. What this paper adds Neutral vertical head/trunk control was different between NMD and TD children SATCo is sensitive to head/trunk control differences between NMD and TD children Ambulant children with NMD showed measurable head/trunk control deficit at various segments SATCo detected subtle head/trunk control changes in early disease stages of NMD Active segmental trunk control declines with increasing age in Duchenne muscular dystrophy Introduction Neuromuscular disorders (NMDs) encompass a heterogeneous group of conditions affecting different aspects of the motor unit. With onset during childhood, paediatric NMDs are mostly genetic in aetiology and vary in distribution of affected muscles, age of onset, and severity of progression. Disability can be mild to severe depending on how muscle weakness, joint contractures, altered sensory perception, respiratory deficiency, skeletal deformities, impaired ambulation, fatigue, and/or exercise intolerance affect an individual’s function. Historically, the prognosis for treatment of individuals with these disorders was non-existent. However, this scenario has been changing since the implementation of the standard of care 1 – 4 and the introduction of glucocorticoids to slow disease progression in Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) 5 . More recently, disease-modifying therapies for the treatment of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), among others in development, 6 are dramatically improving life expectancy and the performance of everyday life activities. Various functional assessments have been developed for clinical use and, more recently, these have been used as outcome measures from drug therapies. 7 As the range of conditions and symptoms vary significantly, some scales assess a wide range of activities in ambulant and non-ambulant patients, 8 – 11 while others are specific to a subset of disorders and relate to specific development of weakness and contractures. 12 – 14 This knowledge is vital for patient management and provides clear, practical information, e.g. the patient remains able to transfer from sitting on a chair to standing. However, these tests are not intended to detect the possible underlying mechanisms of subtle changes in motor ability that occur through all stages of all types of NMDs, especially in the early stages when symptoms are mild or the later stages when patients are non-ambulant and have increased muscle weakness. Effective head and trunk control is critical to upper and lower limb function and fundamental to ambulation 15 – 17 but is not generally a specific assessment in NMD although trunk weakness is a common factor. The Segmental Assessment of Trunk Control (SATCo) is a validated clinical test 18 that is sensitive to subtle changes in trunk control status of alignment with the gravitational vertical (neutral vertical posture, NVP). 19 It tests the head/trunk control in a systematic form by: (i) segmenting to control of six head/trunk segments and full trunk, and (ii) differentiating to static, active and reactive control. SATCo has been applied previously in DMD and shown to detect changes in trunk control. 20 – 22 Importantly, SATCo identifies the topmost (most cephalo) segment at which control of the fully upright NVP is not demonstrated for each type of control. SATCo may thus have potential to provide additional information about head and trunk control status in children with NMD. The objective of this study was to determine, using SATCo, if there was a measurable difference in trunk control status in children with various types of NMDs and typically developing children (TD). Significant differences between groups would mean that SATCo could potentially be used as a guideline for therapeutic interventions or as a measure of treatment effectiveness on NV trunk control. Method Study design, setting, and participants This was an observational cross-sectional study that formed a subset of a larger study (MRC-funded project “Quantification of head and trunk control for children with neuromotor and neuromuscular disorders”, MR/T002034/1). This convenience subsample of 19 children with a clinical diagnosis of NMD and 19 TD children were screened for eligibility and recruited between 2021-2024 by the clinical staff from four hospitals and by advertising to staff from a university to test their children (TD) ( Tables 1 and 2 ). View this table: View inline View popup Download powerpoint Table 1. Clinical and anthropometric characteristics of participants with NMD. Age and time since diagnosis are displayed as age-range: 0-5 years, 6-10 years, and 11-15 years. View this table: View inline View popup Download powerpoint Table 2. Anthropometric characteristics of TD participants. Age is displayed as age-range: 0-5 years, 6-10 years, 11-15 years, and 16 years. Inclusion criteria were children with NMD and TD children between 2 and 16 years old; exclusion criteria were surgical fixation of the spine, both parents or guardians with insufficient understanding of English to give consent, and children who posed a physical risk during testing to themselves or to the research team. Information about the study and opportunity for questions to be discussed/answered were given before parents/guardians signed a written informed consent. Ethical approval was granted by the London-Brent Research Ethics Committee (IRAS project ID: 233469). SATCo, body height and weight, and time since diagnosis were recorded. Experimental protocol SATCo was conducted by two trained assessors. The child was seated on a Leckey Therapy Bench (James Leckey Design Ltd, Lisburn, Ireland) adjusted to ensure hip and knee flexion at 90 degrees and the pelvis stabilised in neutral and safely secured to the bench with the provided pelvic support. The first assessor provided firm horizontal manual support to the trunk, sequentially lowering this support to test each of the seven segments: H ( head ) – support at the shoulder girdle, UT ( upper-thoracic ) - axillae, MT ( mid-thoracic ) - inferior scapula, LT ( lower-thoracic ) - over lower ribs, UL ( upper-lumbar ) - below ribs, LL ( lower-lumbar ) - pelvis, and FT ( full trunk ) - no support given. Three forms of postural control were tested for each segment: Static : maintenance of unsupported NVP for 5 seconds Active : maintenance of NVP during a child-initiated head turn to left and right. Reactive : the ability to return to NVP following a nudge from the front, back, and both sides, performed by the second assessor (Not tested at the head segment). Control was defined as Demonstrated, Not Demonstrated, or Not Tested for each segment and each type of control. Demonstration of control was confirmed if the child was able to maintain the trunk segments above the manual support in NVP without external support. Such external support included upper limb support e.g. arms touching their own body or the bench or external support from another person. The inability to maintain NVP was scored as Not Demonstrated. Control was considered Not Tested if there was an assessor error, for example, assessor preventing child aligning or assessor not holding segment steady in space. Attainment of NVP is a pre-requisite for the reactive control test. SATCo 23 conventionally ceases testing once the status of each form of control is established. For this exploratory study, testing continued to reveal any more caudal variances in NVP control status. Three Intel® RealSense™ Depth Cameras D435 were used with camera positions adjusted to record the participant’s lateral right (20Hz), diagonal front left (20Hz), and diagonal back right views (6Hz) ( Fig.1 ). Download figure Open in new tab Figure 1. Experimental setup The child’s SATCo performance was scored according to published criteria 23 by PBB and TES, authors, and TP, a contributor to this study, from the recorded videos. Statistical analysis The software IBM® SPSS® Statistics for Windows version 28.0.1.1, 2022 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA), was used for statistical analysis. Age differences were tested with a linear mixed effects model (LME) and sex differences were tested with the Chi-square test. Statistical tests report, at alpha=0.05, the outcome of a SATCo assessment (Control Demonstrated, Control Not Demonstrated, Not Tested) using LME: 38 children (19 NMD, 19 TD) with factors condition (NMD, TD), segment (Head, UT, MT, LT, UL, LL, FT), control type (static, active, reactive), included within fixed and random effects (grouped by subject), and ANOVA (Satterthwaite approximation) using the SPSS function ‘MIXED’. SATCo outcomes were also reported with age as covariate in children with DMD only. Results Nineteen children with NMD and 19 TD children participated in this study ( Tables 1 and 2 ). No significant differences were found between NMD and TD groups in sex, X 2 (1,38) =2.53, p=.11. Average age was lower in TD, F (1,36) =4.39, p<.05. This would not affect the comparison between groups, as most TD children achieve full NV trunk control at 12 months. 24 Three main groups of NMDs were tested: muscular dystrophies (ten children with DMD, two with facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy – FSHD, two with limb–girdle muscular dystrophy – LGMD, and one with Becker muscular dystrophy – BMD), myopathies (three children with congenital myopathy), and motor neuron disorders (one child with distal spinal muscular atrophy – SMA). Age at diagnosis varied depending on the type of NMD (Table1). Thirteen out of 19 children with NMD (68.4%) demonstrated NV control in at least one segment and condition, and control was not demonstrated in at least one segment and condition in all 19 children, regardless of clinical diagnosis and ambulation status ( Fig.2 ). Download figure Open in new tab Figure 2. SATCo scores from participants with NMD. Participants are organised by age range, starting from top-left. Thirteen of the 19 children with NMD (68.4%) were ambulant but even these children presented a measurable trunk control deficit. An ambulant child with congenital myopathy and another with FSHD demonstrated no NVP control at any head/trunk segment. The other 11 ambulant children demonstrated control, but only at the higher trunk segments. Among them, seven children with DMD, one with SMA distal, one with FSHD, and one with congenital myopathy demonstrated NV control only at head or at head and thoracic segments ( Fig.2 ). In general, static control was demonstrated more often, then active, followed by reactive control. Finally, only the child with BMD, a milder form of NMD, demonstrated NV control from the head through the upper lumbar segment. In the group of non-ambulant children, only two with LGMD demonstrated NVP head static control. The remaining, three with DMD and one with congenital myopathy, did not demonstrate NVP control at any trunk segment. Interestingly, all seven ambulant children with DMD demonstrated at least one segment of NVP postural control, while none of the three non-ambulant children with DMD demonstrated control at any segment ( Fig.3 ). A significant relationship between increased age and decreased active control was found in DMD (F (1,8) =9.3,p<.05). Static control results were leaning towards significance (F (1,8) =9.1,p=.08). Download figure Open in new tab Figure 3. SATCo scores from participants with DMD only. Participants are organised by age range, starting from top-left. All TD children were able to demonstrate full NVP trunk control ( Fig.4 ). Download figure Open in new tab Figure 4. SATCo scores from TD participants. Participants are organised by age range, starting from top-left. The results from LME analysis confirm that SATCo scores from NMD participants were measurably different from the ones recorded from TD participants (F (1,39.6) =151.0,p<.001). Effects of segment (F (6,138.3) =23.3,p<.001), and control type (F (2,33.0) =6.3,p=.005), interactions condition x segment (F (6,138.3) =23.3,p<.001) and condition x control type (F (2,33.0) =6.3,p=.005) were also significant. This confirms that differences in SATCo scores between NMD and TD children were related to segment and type of control being tested ( Fig.5 ). Download figure Open in new tab Figure 5. Examples of testing procedures in SATCo. All examples were created from tracing images of recorded data. A . Full trunk static control demonstrated by a TD participant. Figures B, C, D, and E were created from recordings of the same ambulant DMD participant (ID #3). B . Upper thoracic static control demonstrated. C . Lower thoracic static control not demonstrated, participant leaning backward. D . Full trunk static control not demonstrated, slight flexion of the lower thoracic and lumbar spine. E . Full trunk static control not demonstrated, extension of the thoracic and lumbar spine. The participant was not able to achieve and maintain a neutral vertical posture (see reference image A) but switched between these two extremes (D and E). Thus, although he clearly has sitting ability, his trunk control difficulties are evident. Discussion This study compares NVP segmental trunk control in 19 children with NMD and 19 age-matched TD children. A significant difference in SATCo outcomes between groups, and a significant difference in results from each segment and type of control was found. Explanation about SATCo Not Tested results This data is a subset of a larger dataset being used to train a neural network to automate SATCo outcomes and provide feedback to assessors regarding the interpretation of SATCo. The present study is setting a rigorous standard for the objective SATCo which will be encoded in the neural network enabling future clarity of outcomes. The incidence of Not Tested scores reflects the rigour of this assessment. SATCo assesses a child’s NVP independent head/trunk control above the manual support, i.e. with the upper limbs and head free of external support. These criteria ensure that head/trunk control alone is tested and not with support provided, for example, by the upper limbs. Due to the strict nature of SATCo, there will be inevitably some instances of Not Tested segments due to tester error. This reflects the reality of assessing children, especially young lively TD children, and the assessor’s skill in performing SATCo ( Fig.4 ). SATCo detects trunk control deficit while children with NMD are ambulant SATCo tests the child’s ability to regulate the position of unsupported head/trunk segments so they remain in or close to NVP by active muscular effort in all directions of movement available at the relevant joint(s). If follows that control is Not Demonstrated if achieved by the use of internal passive support i.e. taking a joint to end of range/maintaining the position through ligament tension or use of external passive support from the upper limbs or contact with external objects. 19 It is noteworthy that the results for children with NMD showed a measurable trunk control deficit at varying segments: this confirms that there is some degree of control deficit in the trunk while children with NMD are still ambulant ( Fig.5 ). This may be enhanced by weakness of relevant muscles. This deficit in trunk control might explain some of the compensatory strategies that children with NMD use while performing functional activities. 17 In walking, for example, many children with NMD present an extreme lumbar lordosis: this strategy would take the lumbar joints to their end of range of motion, so providing a ‘bony/ligament end-stop’ meaning that a stable trunk posture can be maintained with minimal muscle activity. Previous studies also demonstrated deficits in trunk control in ambulant and non-ambulant children with DMD when tested with SATCo. 20 – 22 The results from these studies confirm a gradual trend from higher to lower ability to control a sequential number of trunk segments from ambulant to non-ambulant DMD. However, these results differ from our results with respect to trunk control ability. None of the ambulant children with DMD (n=7) in our study demonstrated full trunk control, whereas in Santos et al., 22 65.5% (n=19) demonstrated full trunk control. This discrepancy might be due to our smaller sample size, and/or a higher rigour of applying SATCo in our study. It is noted that Santos and co-authors found a high incidence of scoliosis in their patient groups but it is not known if this was a fixed bony change or ‘postural’ i.e. passively correctable. It is possible that lack of clarity around SATCo testing in this situation may have contributed to their high number of non-ambulant patients showing full trunk control. Importance of using functional assessments as a measure of treatment effectiveness in NMD For individuals with NMD, it is natural to assume that outcomes related to motor function are the most useful measure of drug effect. Ultimately, the objective of any treatment is to maintain or improve function and minimise disability if cure is not possible. The use of the North Star Ambulatory Assessment (NSAA) 14 as a measure of drug effectiveness in DMD is justifiable, as it was designed specifically to assess the progressive loss of the ability to walk in boys with DMD, the main debilitating characteristic of the disorder. 25 Conway et al., 26 applied the framework provided by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) from the World Health Organization (WHO) to identify a core set of items from ICF most relevant for the assessment of function in DMD and BMD. In a group of 703 individuals, in items related to neuromusculoskeletal and movement-related functions, 66% presented limitations in joint mobility (KAFO/AFO/night splint, tendon release), 99% in muscle power (Gowers’ sign, inability to keep up with peers, independent ambulation ceased, muscle hypotonia, muscle weakness, transfer assistance, trouble climbing stairs, trouble walking, wheelchair use), and 86% in gait pattern (abnormal gait, toe walking). Translating a plethora of motor measures into a single short assessment that can be used in the clinical setting is a challenge. SATCo takes a different approach by evaluating the underlying mechanisms of trunk control that are essential for effective function, including upper and lower limb function. 15 – 17 Furthermore, it can be applied to individuals across all stages of any type of NMD, with no prerequisites such as sitting ability, thus including both ambulant and non-ambulant phases. 22 A SATCo assessment might take about 10-30 min to be completed depending on child ability. SATCo is sensitive to differences in NVP trunk control between NMD and TD not detected in other functional assessments Functional assessments commonly used in the clinical setting are not sensitive to the specific subtle differences in NV head/trunk control detected by SATCo, particularly important to test during the short window between diagnosis and loss of ambulation when there is more opportunity to alter disease progression. A correlation between increased age and decreased active trunk control was found in children with DMD, confirming that SATCo shows how much trunk control worsens as disease progresses. Among the most recommended assessments 27 , 28 , the Motor Function Measure (MFM) 11 scores sitting control on a chair (item 9). This item treats the trunk as a single unit and does not consider the possibility that the component trunk segments may show different control statuses. It corresponds with the highest level of ability tested by SATCo, full trunk control. The NSAA does not include items that specifically assess NV head and trunk control. The PUL2 will give an indication of trunk control but includes components that have arm/hand support e.g. hands lap to table. This confounds the assessment of trunk control in isolation. The Brooke 8 and Vignos 9 Scales broadly rank function. The Egen Klassifikation (EK) 10 , 29 scale is specific for non-ambulatory individuals and independent sitting is not scored. Limitations This was a small exploratory study, hence the small sample size. Nevertheless, the results clearly indicate a marked difference between children with NMD and TD children. Conclusion and future studies The results from this study support the proposal that SATCo is sensitive to differences in trunk control between NMD and TD children. A correlation between decreased active control and increased age found in DMD confirmed that trunk control worsens as disease progresses, showing that SATCo detects disease progression. This work also raises initial questions about what changes occur in trunk control in NMD following diagnosis and when these changes commence. A greater understanding of disease progression could assist in a more objective identification of appropriate interventions and their timing and duration during the initial stages of the disease, when there is greatest opportunity to alter progression of the condition. Although SATCo requires some moderate training of staff who implement the test, its value in terms of resulting information should ensure its place in future research. Linking SATCo findings to the outcomes of functional tests has great promise. There may also be the potential for the use of SATCo during clinical appointments to evaluate drug therapy. The larger study (MR/T002034/1) of which the data reported here is a subset, is producing a clinically based neural network to provide objective analysis and feedback regarding its implementation. This objective SATCo (oSATCo) should facilitate training and delivery of SATCo assessment. Future studies, including longitudinal studies and randomized clinical trials, are recommended to map the progressive segmental changes in trunk control that occur post-diagnosis in NMD and to facilitate a greater understanding of intervention effects. Data Availability The data that support the findings of this study will be available to data scientists using the images for medical imaging analysis research. The decision on whether to supply will reside with Prof Ian Loram and the review panel from the MRC-funded project MR/T002034/1. The criterion to supply will require the users to demonstrate an information security policy equivalent to this project. Appropriate licenses together with data availability statements will outline these conditions and terms of use, as well as access protocols. Funding This research was funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) (MR/T002034/1). The study funder had no role in the study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of data, writing of the manuscript, or decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Acknowledgments We gratefully acknowledge Teresa Perez (TP) and Natalia Rajkowska from Manchester Metropolitan University for their contributions to this study. We also thank James Leckey Design Ltd (Lisburn, Ireland) for kindly providing Leckey Therapy Benches for this study. Abbreviations BMD Becker muscular dystrophy DMD Duchenne muscular dystrophy FSHD Facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy H, UT, MT, LT, UL, LL, FT Head, Upper thoracic, Mid thoracic, Lower thoracic, Upper lumbar, Lower lumbar, Full trunk LGMD Limb–girdle muscular dystrophy LME Linear mixed-effects model SATCo, oSATCo Segmental Assessment of Trunk Control, Objective Segmental Assessment of Trunk Control SMA Spinal muscular atrophy MD Muscular dystrophy NMD Neuromuscular disorder NSAA North Star Ambulatory Assessment NV, NVP Neutral vertical, neutral vertical posture TD Typically developing References 1. ↵ Birnkrant DJ , Bushby K , Bann CM , et al. Diagnosis and management of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, part 1: diagnosis, and neuromuscular, rehabilitation, endocrine, and gastrointestinal and nutritional management . Lancet Neurol 2018 ; 17 : 251 – 67 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 2. ↵ Bushby K , Finkel R , Birnkrant DJ , et al. Diagnosis and management of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, part 1: diagnosis, and pharmacological and psychosocial management . Lancet Neurol 2010 ; 9 : 77 – 93 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science 3. Birnkrant DJ , Bushby K , Bann CM , et al. Diagnosis and management of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, part 3: primary care, emergency management, psychosocial care, and transitions of care across the lifespan . Lancet Neurol 2018 ; 17 : 445 – 55 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 4. ↵ Birnkrant DJ , Bushby K , Bann CM , et al. Diagnosis and management of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, part 2: respiratory, cardiac, bone health, and orthopaedic management . Lancet Neurol 2018 ; 17 : 347 – 61 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 5. ↵ McDonald CM , Henricson EK , Abresch RT , et al. Long-term effects of glucocorticoids on function, quality of life, and survival in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy: a prospective cohort study . The Lancet 2018 ; 391 : 451 – 61 . OpenUrl 6. ↵ Thompson R , Spendiff S , Roos A , et al. Advances in the diagnosis of inherited neuromuscular diseases and implications for therapy development . Lancet Neurol 2020 ; 19 : 522 – 32 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 7. ↵ Mercuri E , Mazzone E. Choosing the right clinical outcome measure: From the patient to the statistician and back . Neuromuscular Disorders 2011 ; 21 : 16 – 9 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 8. ↵ Brooke MH , Griggs RC , Mendell JR , Fenichel GM , Shumate JB , Pellegrino RJ . Clinical trial in Duchenne dystrophy. 1. The design of the protocol . Muscle Nerve 1981 ; 4 : 186 – 97 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science 9. ↵ Vignos PJ , Archibald KC . Maintenance of ambulation in childhood muscular dystrophy . J Chronic Dis 1960 ; 12 : 273 – 90 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 10. ↵ Steffensen B , Hyde S , Lyager S , Mattsson E. Validity of the EK scale: A functional assessment of non-ambulatory individuals with Duchenne muscular dystrophy or spinal muscular atrophy . Physiotherapy Research International 2001 ; 6 : 119 – 34 . OpenUrl PubMed 11. ↵ Bérard C , Payan C , Hodgkinson I , Fermanian J. A motor function measure scale for neuromuscular diseases. Construction and validation study . Neuromuscular Disorders 2005 ; 15 : 463 – 70 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science 12. ↵ Mayhew AG , Coratti G , Mazzone ES , et al. Performance of Upper Limb module for Duchenne muscular dystrophy . Dev Med Child Neurol 2020 ; 62 : 633 – 9 . OpenUrl PubMed 13. Glanzman AM , Mazzone E , Main M , et al. The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Infant Test of Neuromuscular Disorders (CHOP INTEND): Test development and reliability . Neuromuscular Disorders 2010 ; 20 : 155 – 61 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 14. ↵ Mazzone ES , Messina S , Vasco G , et al. Reliability of the North Star Ambulatory Assessment in a multicentric setting . Neuromuscular Disorders 2009 ; 19 : 458 – 61 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 15. ↵ Normann B , Arntzen EC . What are the relationships between trunk control, balance and walking in individuals with multiple sclerosis with minor to moderate disability? Eur J Physiother 2021 ; 23 : 377 – 83 . OpenUrl 16. Monica S , Nayak A , Joshua AM , et al. Relationship between trunk position sense and trunk control in children with spastic cerebral palsy: A cross-sectional study . Rehabil Res Pract 2021 ; 2021 : 9758640 . OpenUrl PubMed 17. ↵ Peeters LHC , Kingma I , Van Dieën JH , De Groot IJM. Don’t forget the trunk in Duchenne muscular dystrophy patients: More muscle weakness and compensation than expected . J Neuroeng Rehabil 2019 ; 16 . DOI: 10.1186/s12984-019-0515-y . OpenUrl CrossRef 18. ↵ Butler P , Saavedra MS , Sofranac MM , Jarvis MS , Woollacott M. Refinement, reliability and validity of the segmental assessment of trunk control (SATCo) . Pediatr Phys Ther 2010 ; 22 : 246 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 19. ↵ Butler PB , Major R. Segmental Assessment of Trunk Control (SATCo) . https://optimi.org.uk/satco/ (accessed 19 Sept 2024 ). 20. ↵ de Sá C dos SC , Fagundes IK , Araújo TB , Oliveira ASB , Fávero FM . The relevance of trunk evaluation in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: The segmental assessment of trunk control . Arq Neuropsiquiatr 2016 ; 74 : 791 – 5 . OpenUrl PubMed 21. Maciel FK de L , Santos ALY da S , Sá CDSC de . Responsiveness of upper limb scales and trunk control for the evolution of patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy . Revista Paulista de Pediatria 2021 ; 39 : e2020045 . OpenUrl 22. ↵ Santos ALY da S , Maciel FK de L , Fávero FM , Grossklauss LF , de Sá C dos SC . Trunk control and upper limb function of walking and non-walking Duchenne muscular dystrophy individuals . Dev Neurorehabil 2021 ; 24 : 435 – 41 . OpenUrl PubMed 23. ↵ Butler PB , Saavedra S , Sofranac M , Jarvis SE , Woollacott MH . Refinement, reliability, and validity of the segmental assessment of trunk control . Pediatric Physical Therapy 2010 ; 22 : 246 – 57 . OpenUrl PubMed 24. ↵ Pin TW , Butler PB , Cheung HM , Shum SLF . Relationship between segmental trunk control and gross motor development in typically developing infants aged from 4 to 12 months: A pilot study . BMC Pediatr 2019 ; 19 . DOI: 10.1186/s12887-019-1791-1 . OpenUrl CrossRef 25. ↵ Morena CP , Martinez-Vizcaino V , Álvarez-Bueno C , et al. Effectiveness of pharmacological treatments in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis . BMJ Open 2019 ; 9 : e029341 . OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 26. ↵ Conway KM , Ciafaloni E , Matthews D , et al. Application of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health system to symptoms of the Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophies . Disabil Rehabil 2018 ; 40 : 1773 – 80 . OpenUrl PubMed 27. ↵ Ribault S , Rippert P , Jain M , et al. Psychometric characteristics of the Motor Function Measure in neuromuscular diseases: A systematic review . J Neuromuscul Dis 2023 ; 10 : 301 – 14 . OpenUrl PubMed 28. ↵ Diniz GPC , Lasmar LM de LBF , Giannetti JG . Doenças neuromusculares e instrumentos úteis na avaliação motora em crianças e adolescentes . Rev Med Minas Gerais 2010 ; 20 : S12 – 9 . OpenUrl 29. ↵ Steffensen BF , Lyager S , Werge B , Rahbek J , Mattsson E. Physical capacity in non-ambulatory people with Duchenne muscular dystrophy or spinal muscular atrophy: A longitudinal study . Dev Med Child Neurol 2002 ; 44 : 623 – 32 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science View the discussion thread. Back to top Previous Next Posted March 13, 2025. Download PDF Data/Code Email Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv. NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article. Your Email * Your Name * Send To * Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas. You are going to email the following Trunk control status in children with neuromuscular disorders and typically developing children: is there a measurable difference? Message Subject (Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv Message Body (Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website. Your Personal Message CAPTCHA This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. Share Trunk control status in children with neuromuscular disorders and typically developing children: is there a measurable difference? Tania E. Sakanaka , Penelope B. Butler , Richa Kulshrestha , Tracey Willis , Ian D. Loram medRxiv 2025.03.12.25322083; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.03.12.25322083 Share This Article: Copy Citation Tools Trunk control status in children with neuromuscular disorders and typically developing children: is there a measurable difference? Tania E. Sakanaka , Penelope B. Butler , Richa Kulshrestha , Tracey Willis , Ian D. Loram medRxiv 2025.03.12.25322083; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.03.12.25322083 Citation Manager Formats BibTeX Bookends EasyBib EndNote (tagged) EndNote 8 (xml) Medlars Mendeley Papers RefWorks Tagged Ref Manager RIS Zotero Tweet Widget Facebook Like Google Plus One Subject Area Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy Subject Areas All Articles Addiction Medicine (566) Allergy and Immunology (863) Anesthesia (295) Cardiovascular Medicine (4408) Dentistry and Oral Medicine (443) Dermatology (379) Emergency Medicine (606) Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (1505) Epidemiology (15201) Forensic Medicine (30) Gastroenterology (1119) Genetic and Genomic Medicine (6568) Geriatric Medicine (666) Health Economics (994) Health Informatics (4508) Health Policy (1365) Health Systems and Quality Improvement (1606) Hematology (537) HIV/AIDS (1262) Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (15901) Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (1103) Medical Education (619) Medical Ethics (144) Nephrology (665) Neurology (6571) Nursing (345) Nutrition (998) Obstetrics and Gynecology (1139) Occupational and Environmental Health (954) Oncology (3319) Ophthalmology (967) Orthopedics (369) Otolaryngology (420) Pain Medicine (435) Palliative Medicine (129) Pathology (662) Pediatrics (1686) Pharmacology and Therapeutics (691) Primary Care Research (710) Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (5419) Public and Global Health (9200) Radiology and Imaging (2190) Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (1367) Respiratory Medicine (1191) Rheumatology (593) Sexual and Reproductive Health (709) Sports Medicine (529) Surgery (709) Toxicology (99) Transplantation (288) Urology (265) (function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'9fe63c6b89b3593a',t:'MTc3OTIyNjU3NA=='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();