To investigate the feasibility of a knee proprioception evaluation using a dynamometer as a tool for evaluating proprioception of the lower extremities in patients with incomplete spinal cord injury (SCI), and to explore its usefulness in predicting the ambulatory outcome.

A total of 14 SCI patients (10 tetraplegic, 4 paraplegic; all AIS D) were included in this study. The passive repositioning error (PRE) and active repositioning error (ARE) were measured with a dynamometer, along with tibial somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP) and abductor hallucis motor-evoked potential (MEP). Ambulatory capacity was assessed with the Walking Index for Spinal Cord Injury II (WISCI-II), both at the time of the proprioception test (WISCI_i) and at least 6 months after the test (WISCI_6mo).

The PRE showed a negative correlation with WISCI_i (r=-0.440, p=0.034) and WISCI_6mo (r=-0.568, p=0.010). Linear multiple regression showed the type of injury, lower extremities motor score, MEP, and PRE accounted for 75.4% of the WISCI_6mo variance (p=0.080).

Proprioception of the knee can be measured quantitatively with a dynamometer in patients with incomplete SCI, and PRE was related to the outcome of the ambulatory capacity. Along with the neurological and electrophysiological examinations, a proprioception test using a dynamometer may have supplementary value in predicting the ambulatory capacity in patients with incomplete SCI.

To investigate the relationship between motor evoked potential (MEP) response and the severity of motor paralysis, evaluated according to the Korean disability evaluation system in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI).

We analyzed 192 lower limbs of 96 SCI patients. Lower limbs were classified according to their motor scores, as determined by the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury: motor score <10 (group 1); ≥10 and <15 (group 2); ≥15 and <20 (group 3); and ≥20 (group 4). MEP responses were classified as ‘normal’, ‘delayed’ or ‘absent’, based on their onset latency, which was compared between the different motor score groups.

MEP responses and limb motor scores were highly correlated (p<0.001). There was a significant difference of MEP responses between the motor score groups (p<0.001). MEP response was markedly poorer in motor group 1 (limb motor score <10) than in the other three groups (p<0.0001). However, there were no differences between the three groups with motor scores of 10 or above.

Clinical utility of MEP as a complimentary tool to manual muscle tests could be limited to discriminating motor score groups with severe paralysis, i.e., single lower limb motor power grades of 0 or 1, and from grade 2, 3, and 4, or above, in the Korean disability evaluation system.