RESUMO
The authors seek to clarify the nomenclature used to describe cervical spinal cord injuries, particularly the use of the terms "tetraplegia", "quadriplegia", "quadriparesis", "tetraparesis", "incomplete quadriplegia" or "incomplete tetraplegia" when applied to patients with lower cervical cord injuries. A review of the origin of the terms and nomenclature used currently to describe the neurological status of patients with SCI in the literature was performed. The terms "tetraplegia", "quadriplegia", "quadriparesis", "tetraparesis", "incomplete quadriplegia" or "incomplete tetraplegia" have been used very often to describe patients with complete lower cervical SCI despite the fact that the clinical scenario is all the same for most of these patients. Most of these patients have total loss of the motor voluntary movements of their lower trunk and inferior limbs, and partial impairment of movement of their superior limbs, preserving many motor functions of the proximal muscles of their arms (superior limbs). A potentially better descriptive term may be "paraplegia with brachial diparesis". In using the most appropriate terminology, the patients with lower cervical SCI currently referred as presenting with "tetraplegia", "quadriplegia", "quadriparesis", "tetraparesis", "incomplete quadriplegia" or "incomplete tetraplegia", might be better described as having "paraplegia with brachial diparesis".
Assuntos
Paraplegia/classificação , Quadriplegia/classificação , Traumatismos da Medula Espinal/classificação , Terminologia como Assunto , Vértebras Cervicais , Humanos , Paraplegia/etiologia , Quadriplegia/etiologia , Traumatismos da Medula Espinal/complicaçõesRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The neurological examination terminologies and definitions of the status of spinal cord injured (SCI) patients are of great importance to establish scales and provide standard nomenclatures. There is a disagreement between the classical neurological terminology and the definitions of complete and incomplete paraplegia that have been proposed in traumatic spinal cord injured patients. OBJECTIVE: To discuss the adequacy and the impact of the terms incomplete paraplegia and paraparesis in current literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A review of the origin of the terms, definitions and nomenclatures applied by the most widespread assessment scales in traumatic SCI published in peer review papers was performed, searching the scales cited on the references of the latest American Spinal Injury Association classification (2002; available in http://www.asia-spinalinjury.org/ ) up to the first classification, described by Frankel et al. [14]. RESULTS: The term "incomplete paraplegia" has been used to define clinical situations classically described as "paraparesis". CONCLUSION: The terms "complete" and "incomplete" are adequately used to characterize the completeness of spinal cord lesion but inadequately used when associated to the term "plegia" as a qualifier. Therefore, patients with any preservation of motor strength below the injury level should be described as paraparetic and not as incomplete paraplegic.