Page 12 of 13
OR8.1,OR9.1 | Neuromuscular Orthopaedics — Assignment
CLINICAL SCENARIO
This assignment develops your ability to clinically differentiate post-polio residual paralysis (PPRP) from cerebral palsy (CP) — two conditions that both produce lower-limb deformity but through fundamentally different neuromechanisms (LMN vs UMN). You will construct a comparative management plan for a dual-presentation clinical scenario, applying your knowledge of tendon transfers, GMFCS classification, dynamic versus fixed deformity, and timing of surgical intervention. This develops the clinical reasoning required for MBBS examination and ward-based management of these patients.
Instructions
You are presented with two patients attending the orthopaedic outpatient clinic on the same morning:
Patient A: Mr. Ramesh, 22 years old. History of febrile illness at age 2 with subsequent right lower limb weakness. Now presents with right foot drop, wasting of the right thigh, absent knee jerk, and a valgus deformity at the right knee. Power testing: right quadriceps 3/5, hamstrings 4/5, tibialis anterior 1/5, tibialis posterior 4/5.
Patient B: Miss Sita, 8 years old. Born preterm, neonatal jaundice requiring exchange transfusion. Presents with bilateral lower-limb difficulty walking. Examination: bilateral equinus on weight-bearing, both feet passively dorsiflexible to 5° above neutral with knees extended, brisk knee jerks bilaterally, 2+ ankle clonus, scissoring of gait.
Write a structured comparative clinical management plan addressing the following sections:
1. Confirm the neurological classification (LMN vs UMN) for each patient with reasoning based on clinical signs.
2. Identify the key orthopaedic deformity in each patient and classify it (dynamic vs fixed, where applicable).
3. For Patient A: outline the indications and prerequisites for tendon transfer (including donor muscle requirements), and propose a specific surgical plan.
4. For Patient B: classify her CP type, assign a GMFCS level, and propose initial conservative management before considering any surgical intervention.
5. Reflect on one key complication of the planned intervention for each patient and how it can be prevented.
Length: 600–900 words
What to Submit
Section 1: Neurological Classification and Reasoning
Guidance: For each patient, list the clinical signs present and map each sign to either LMN or UMN pathophysiology. Clearly state which motor neuron level is affected and the underlying disease mechanism (poliovirus anterior horn cell destruction vs perinatal UMN injury in CP).
Section 2: Deformity Identification and Classification
Guidance: Name the specific deformity present in each patient. For Patient B, distinguish between dynamic deformity (correctable on passive examination) and fixed contracture. State the clinical test used to determine this distinction (passive dorsiflexion with knee extended vs flexed).
Section 3: Tendon Transfer Plan for Patient A
Guidance: State the indication for tendon transfer, the rule for minimum donor power (cite the MRC grade threshold), identify the proposed donor muscle for foot drop correction, the recipient site, and the surgical technique (anterior route through interosseous membrane). Note the expected one-grade postoperative power loss.
Section 4: CP Classification and Conservative Management for Patient B
Guidance: Classify CP type (spastic? which distribution? any dyskinetic features from the neonatal jaundice history?). Assign a GMFCS level based on the description. Outline conservative management: physiotherapy goals, AFO prescription, and rationale for botulinum toxin A (mechanism of action, target muscle, duration of effect).
Section 5: Complication Prevention
Guidance: For Patient A: name the most likely complication of tibialis posterior transfer (planovalgus overcorrection or under-correction). For Patient B: name the most feared complication of excessive tendo Achilles lengthening if subsequently required (calcaneus deformity). State how each complication is avoided.
Grading Rubric — Neuromuscular Orthopaedics Assignment Rubric
| Criterion | Points | Full-marks descriptor |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy of LMN vs UMN neurological classification with sign-based reasoning | 10 pts | Correctly classifies both patients as LMN (PPRP) and UMN (CP); maps all key clinical signs (areflexia/wasting/flaccidity vs hyperreflexia/clonus/spasticity) to the correct neuron level with clear mechanistic explanation. |
| Correct identification of deformity type and dynamic vs fixed distinction for Patient B | 10 pts | Identifies foot drop in Patient A; correctly classifies Patient B's equinus as dynamic (passively correctable to >neutral) using the correct passive dorsiflexion test; states that dynamic deformity rules out immediate surgical correction. |
| Tendon transfer planning (Patient A): donor selection, power threshold, surgical route, and expected outcome | 10 pts | States minimum donor grade ≥4; correctly identifies tibialis posterior as donor; describes anterior route through interosseous membrane to the dorsum; acknowledges one-grade postoperative loss; notes any required foot position prerequisites. |
| CP classification (type + distribution), GMFCS level assignment with justification, and conservative management plan for Patient B | 10 pts | Correctly identifies spastic diplegia or considers dyskinetic features given neonatal jaundice (kernicterus) aetiology; assigns GMFCS Level II-III with explicit functional justification; outlines physiotherapy + AFO + BtA with correct mechanism (SNAP-25 cleavage, presynaptic ACh block, gastrocnemius-soleus target, 3-6 month duration). |
| Identification and prevention of one key complication per patient | 10 pts | For Patient A: identifies planovalgus overcorrection or under-correction of foot drop and states a preventive measure (split transfer / maintaining invertor balance). For Patient B: identifies calcaneus deformity as the feared TAL complication and states how it is prevented (judicious measured lengthening, intraoperative tension assessment). |
PEER REVIEW
Review your peer's assignment against the following criteria: (1) Is the LMN vs UMN classification for each patient backed by specific clinical signs? (2) Is the dynamic vs fixed deformity distinction for Patient B clearly argued with the correct passive test? (3) Is the tendon transfer plan for Patient A technically complete — donor grade threshold stated, donor muscle named, route described? (4) Is the CP type and GMFCS level for Patient B logically justified? (5) Are the complications specific to the planned procedures (not generic surgical risks)? Provide at least two constructive suggestions and identify one strength in the submission.