Content » Vol 53, Issue 1

Review article

A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO OPTIMIZING THE BENEFITS OF POST-STROKE SPASTICITY INTERVENTIONS WITH BOTULINUM TOXIN A: AN INTERNATIONAL GROUP CONSENSUS

Gerard E. Francisco, MD1, Alexander Balbert, PhD2, Ganesh Bavikatte, MD, FRCP, FEBPRM3, Djamel Bensmail, MD4, Stefano Carda, MD, PhD5, Thierry Deltombe, MD6, Nathalie Draulans, MD7, Steven Escaldi, DO8, Raphaël Gross, MD, PhD9, Jorge Jacinto, MD10, Nicholas Ketchum, MD11, Franco Molteni, MD12, Susana Moraleda, MD13, Michael W. O’Dell, MD14, Rajiv Reebye, MD, FRCPC15, Patrik Säterö, MD16, Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD17, Heather Walker, MD18 and Jörg Wissel, MD, FRCP19

From the 1University of Texas Health Science Center McGovern Medical School, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, and The Institute for Rehabilitation and Research (TIRR) Memorial Hermann Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA, 2Department of Adaptive Physical Training, Ural University of Physical Education, Sverdlovsk regional hospital for war veterans. Yekaterinburg, Russia, 3Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, The Walton Centre National Health Service Trust, Lower Lane, Liverpool, UK, 4Raymond Poincaré Hospital, Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, University of Versailles Saint-Quentin, Garches, France, 5Service of Neuropsychology and Neurorehabilitation, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland, 6Medecine Physique & Readaptation, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire UCL Namur site Godinne, Yvoir, Belgium, 7Libra Rehabilitation & Audiology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 8JFK-Johnson Rehabilitation Institute, New Jersey, USA, Rutgers – Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Hackensack Meridian Health School of Medicine at Seton Hall University, New Jersey, USA, 9Nantes Université, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nantes, Movement - Interactions – Performance (MIP), Nantes, France, 10Alcoitão Medical Rehabiliation Centre, Rua Conde Barão, Alcabideche, Portugal, 11Medical College of Wisconsin, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA, 12Valduce Hospital ”Villa Beretta” Rehabilitation Center, Costa Masnaga, Italy, 13Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Department, La Paz University Hopital, Madrid, Spain, 14Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, USA, 15Department of Medicine, Division of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC Canada , 16Rehdo Rehabilitation Centre, Gothenburg, Sweden, 17Joe R. & Teresa Lozano Long School of Medicine at UT Health San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 18Medical University of South Carolina Health Rehabilitation Hospital of Charleston an Affiliate of Encompass Health, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA and 19Neurological Rehabilitation and Physical Therapy, Vivantes Hospital Spandau, Berlin, Germany

Abstract

This consensus paper is derived from a meeting of an international group of 19 neurological rehabilitation specialists with a combined experience of more than 250 years (range 4–25 years; mean 14.1 years) in treating post-stroke spasticity with botulinum toxin A. The group undertook critical assessments of some recurring practical challenges, not yet addressed in guidelines, through an extensive literature search. They then discussed the results in the light of their individual clinical experience and developed consensus statements to present to the wider community who treat such patients. The analysis provides a comprehensive overview of treatment with botulinum toxin A, including the use of adjunctive therapies, within a multidisciplinary context, and is aimed at practicing clinicians who treat patients with post-stroke spasticity and require further practical guidance on the use of botulinum toxin A. This paper does not replicate information published elsewhere, but instead aims to provide practical advice to help optimize the use of botulinum toxin A and maximize clinical outcomes. The recommendations for each topic are summarized in a series of statements. Where published high-quality evidence exists, the recommendations reflect this. However, where evidence is not yet conclusive, the group members issued statements and, in some cases, made recommendations based on their clinical experience.

Key words: spasticity; botulinum toxin; consensus guideline.

Accepted Sep 29, 2020; pub ahead of print Oct 15, 2020

J Rehabil Med 2021; 53: jrm00134

Correspondence address: Gerard E. Francisco, McGovern Medical School, Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, TIRR Memorial Hermann Hospital, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Houston, USA. E-mail: gerard.e.francisco@uth.tmc.edu

Doi: 10.2340/16501977-2753

Lay Abstract

A group of doctors from around the world, who are experts in treating muscle stiffness and spasm (also called spasticity), reviewed the current scientific evidence supporting the effectiveness of using botulinum toxin injections in treatment of spasticity that results from a stroke. When evidence is not available, they discussed and agreed on the best way to treat spasticity using botulinum toxin. The recommendations made by these expert doctors can be used by less-experienced doctors as a guide to how best to use botulinum toxin injection in treating spasticity after a stroke.

Introduction

Botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A) has been in clinical use for treating post-stroke spasticity for approximately 30 years and is the accepted standard of care for focal post-stroke spasticity (1). It is currently known that BoNT-A treatment is safe and effective for use in both upper and lower limb spasticity, where it can result in both active and passive functional gains (2). Furthermore, BoNT-A is a first-line pharmacological treatment in the management of post-stoke focal and multi-focal spasticity, which, along with a multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach, should be part of a rehabilitation programme to promote optimal clinical effect (3–5). In addition, the Royal College of Physicians’ (RCP) guidelines for management of adult spasticity using BoNT-A (6) recommend that patient selection and management should be based on individualized criteria, resulting in a patient-centred approach to management.

Despite the ever-expanding literature base on this topic, it is clear that further clinical research is necessary to increase understanding and fill gaps in post-stoke spasticity treatment protocols. The group felt that, in the intervening time, there remained a need to provide practical advice on how best to tailor treatment regimens using BoNT-A for individual patients in order to optimize care.

Although BoNT-A is an established treatment for focal spasticity, there is little consensus on how to improve efficacy, and there is a need to increase prescribers’ confidence in its use, share current best practice, and identify reasons for sub-optimal responses (e.g. injection technique, dosing, muscle selection).

The group agreed 3 key areas in which additional practical guidance and/or personal training and supervision is required: (i) individualized approach to spastic upper limb in stroke; (ii) optimal injection technique and preparation of the toxin; and (iii) adjunctive treatments. They examined the evidence for each topic, obtained from literature searches using the College of College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia review, Medline, CINAHL and PubMed databases. They subsequently met on 2 separate occasions for full-day discussions to agree consensus statements on the topics. The gaps in the literature were filled with the knowledge acquired from the combined clinical experience of the group (Table I). Some topics, such as the assessment of spasticity and measurement of the effects of the treatment, have not been addressed by this review, as the authors felt that they have been adequately evaluated elsewhere. However, the authors agree that the Ashworth/Modified Ashworth scale, in spite of its limitations, is currently the preferred scale for assessment of spasticity, due to its simplicity of use. Whilst there is increasing interest in the Tardieu scale, due to its consideration of the velocity-dependent nature of the condition, it is more complex to implement and, therefore, more difficult to interpret. The measurement of treatment effects has not been included in this review, as it has been addressed in many guidelines (6).


Table I. Consensus statements from the international group of experts

INDIVIDUALIZED APPROACH TO THE TREATMENT OF SPASTICITY IN STROKE

The need for an individualized approach is well established (2, 7, 8). While randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have become the accepted gold standard for directing treatment, their strict protocols may not allow an individualized approach or treatment interventions that are applicable to real-life clinical scenarios.

Goal-setting

Patients and caregivers have wide-ranging goals and expectations from treatment, and optimal management plans should accommodate these variables whenever possible.

Goal-setting, as measured by the Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS), in which individual goals for intervention are tailored to individual patients (9, 10), has merit. It sets targets for intervention and provides a standardized measure of outcome (11). GAS has been shown to be sensitive to changes in areas of symptoms/impairment and function/participation, following focal interventions, which are not detected by more global measures (12). Approximately half of the group involved in this analysis stated that they use GAS always or often.

However, consideration must also be paid to how goals are defined and prioritized. For example, a goal may be “reduction in pain”, but we must define whether this is a reduction in intensity or duration of pain. In addition, while a patient may consider being able to sign his or her name or shake hands as desirable functional goals, the physician might regard the manual dexterity improvement as insufficient if they cannot unscrew a bottle cap.

It is undecided if a new treatment schedule should start with a modest list of goals that are gradually extended, or if the patient and physician should strive from the outset to accomplish an ambitious list of desired outcomes.

Throughout the continuum of care, goals need to be re-evaluated and re-prioritized as it becomes clear what can be achieved, considering the outcome and the limitations of treatment.

Optimal dose of botulinum toxin A

The optimal dose of BoNT-A per injection session is not clear. Although Summaries of Product Characteristics (SPC) give recommendations regarding dosage, it is not known if these are optimal. Clinical experience and recent guideline updates (3) have identified opportunities to tailor treatment to increase the benefits for patients. Several patient/practitioner surveys conducted during the last few years have highlighted a requirement for more tailored treatment options and more flexibility in dose (and/or injection intervals) than those currently approved (13–15).

Increasing the toxin dose can reduce the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) score (3, 16–18). Most physicians who administer BoNT to patients with post-stroke spasticity believe that greater flexibility regarding dosing and treatment intervals for injections might benefit some patients (8,19). Approximately 60% of physicians would use higher doses if there were no label restrictions (20).

The use of higher than approved doses of BoNT-A has been investigated in the TOWER study (21). This prospective, open-label, single-arm, multicentre, dose-titration study investigated the safety and efficacy of increased incobotulinumtoxinA total-body doses (up to 800 U); this is a higher limit than studied previously. Doses of up to 800 U allowed the treatment of an increasing number of spasticity patterns at a single treatment session without compromising safety or tolerability, enabling patients to achieve more goals. A dose of 800 U of incobotulinumtoxinA enabled more than 97% of patients with cerebral-origin spasticity to receive simultaneous treatment of the upper and lower limb, and more patients achieved 3 or 4 goals (87%) with 800 U than with the lower dose (25% in the 400 U group). The higher dose also increased the number of patients with no quality of life (QoL) impairment on the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) scale. Importantly, in the TOWER study there was no development of clinical non-responsiveness and no development of neutralizing antibodies. The majority (82%) of the clinicians in the consensus group stated that they were comfortable using 800 U of incobotulinumtoxinA in routine clinical practice.

A recent study (18) assessed the effects of repeated injections of abobotulinumtoxinA in doses of 500, 1,000, or 1,500 over a period of one year. Although the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) decreased across cycles, the investigators’ evaluation identified 2 cases (constipation, diplopia) in which possible remote spread of toxin effect could not be ruled out and 8 patients seroconverted for neutralizing antibodies up to the study end.

Whilst it could be hypothesized that higher-than-approved doses of onabotulinumtoxinA would also be safe and effective, the group felt that it was important to first demonstrate this in clinical trials.

Initiation and frequency of botulinum toxin A administration

There are also considerations about the optimal time to start treatment and treatment intervals. In lower limb studies in patients with stroke and traumatic brain injury, there is some evidence that earlier treatment of patients with BoNT-A in the post-stroke period achieves better outcomes than is seen in those treated later (17, 22–24). Wein et al. have compared treatment at < 24 months with > 24 months post-stroke and show greater improvement in MAS in the < 24-month post-stroke group, but comment that this is perhaps due to the use of higher doses and more muscles being injected during the open-label phase (Wein et al., personal communication). In an exploratory study, early abobotulinumtoxinA treatment significantly delayed time to reach re-injection criteria compared with placebo in patients with post-stroke upper limb spasticity (ULS) (25).

Duration of effect of BoNT-A can influence the choice of treatment intervals. The duration of effect of BoNT-A can vary between patients, depending on numerous parameters (e.g. clinical condition, age of patient) (13). Although the duration of action is correlated to the amount injected at lower doses, at higher doses of BoNT-A, the duration of action is thought to saturate at approximately 3 months (26).

Flexibility in treatment protocols is determined by individual product licenses, which often lag behind real-world experience (17, 21, 27–29). It may be better to select treatment intervals based on individual patient needs rather than pre-defined regimens.

In a survey of post-stroke spasticity patients (13), while 55% of patients were re-injected at 13–14 weeks or later, 79% actually preferred shorter injection intervals (35.5% at 11–12 weeks). Patient satisfaction decreased as the effects of the previous injection wore off. Thus, patients live with a roller-coaster effect, having treatment that declines in effectiveness with time and then increases again after another injection, suggesting that attempts should be made towards maintaining a near steady-state level of patient satisfaction. To date, unlike in cervical dystonia (CD) (30–32), there are no prospective safety and tolerability data available to support flexible injection intervals in spasticity. However, more than half (53%) of the consensus group members stated that they were confident to re-inject patients when they reported that the maximum effects have worn off, irrespective of common practice (12-week intervals).

TOXIN PREPARATION AND INJECTION TECHNIQUE

A number of different methods and techniques are commonly employed to perform BoNT-A injections and there is much variability in practice for preparing and handling the toxin and in techniques used for localization, analgesia, dilution and muscle targeting. The practical recommendations made by the group are summarized below. The authors recommend that personal hands-on training and supervision is mandatory for inexperienced clinicians.

Storage

Before reconstitution, the manufacturers’ recommendations regarding storage should be followed (as detailed in the package inserts) (33–36).

The group recommends that each toxin is stored and prepared according to the SPC instructions.

Reconstitution and aspiration

Manufacturers’ package inserts recommend that BoNT-A should be reconstituted with preservative-free normal saline. Usual practice is to shake gently and avoid aggressive agitation, since one study suggested that mechanical effects of reconstitution were potentially damaging to toxin structure and efficacy (37). However, further studies have shown that constant agitation of the reconstituted solution did not decrease efficacy up to 42 days (38) and vigorous vs gentle agitation made no impact on efficacy (39).

A more recent study concluded that shaking and use of small-bore needles can damage the toxin, as measured by the response time of mouse hemidiaphragm to reduction in force of muscle contraction (40). Since aspiration leaves a small volume of toxin in the vial, use of small-bore needles can be helpful in increasing aspiration efficiency (balanced with the theoretical risk of toxin damage). Some suggest removing the vial stopper to access the maximum volume of toxin, but this risks vial breakage and contamination of the solution, especially if multi-use is planned (41). Residual volume in a capped vial is 0.127 ml, equivalent to almost 13 U per 100 U vial (in a 100 U/ 1 ml dilution). Alternatively, by using a 2” long 21G needle, it is possible to limit loss to 2.3–4.6 U/vial (assuming 100 U/ 1 ml dilution) (42). The group was supportive of this approach, awaiting further evidence.

Dilution

A wide range of dilution ratios may be used according to circumstances for common postures of the upper limb in post-stroke spasticity (3, 24).

Animal studies have shown that injections of higher volumes can increase denervation (43, 44). However, the situation is not so clear in humans due to unavailability of adequately powered studies. Higher volumes have been reported more effective in children with cerebral palsy (45). One study has considered both volume and end-plate targeting of the biceps brachii in 21 adults with spastic hemiplegia following stroke (46). Results showed that high-volume/non-targeted and low-volume/targeted were superior to low-volume/non-targeted. Higher volume and lower concentration has also shown a trend for better efficacy in patients with upper limb spasticity of various aetiologies (47). In a study of the upper limb, despite a trend for more improvement using higher volumes, the improvement was not statistically significant (48); a lack of significance was also seen in 3 studies of the lower limb, 2 of which investigated patients with spastic equinovarus foot (49–51).

The group advised that it may also be necessary to take individual muscle structure into account when injecting, and approximately half stated that they changed dilution to achieve an optimal effect. However, further recommendations are needed to identify the number and location of injection sites (7) required to achieve maximum toxin effect.

Analgesia

EMLA (eutectic mixture of local anesthetics, Aspen Pharma, Ireland) cream and ice packs are equally effective in reducing injection pain at the gastrocnemius, but ice is an easier and cheaper option (52). Vapocoolant has been found to be ineffective (55); however, the time lapse between use of vapocoolant and the injection itself could be a factor. Other authors found (on forehead injections or gastrocnemius for electromyography (EMG)) that vapocoolant is more effective than EMLA (53, 54).

An older study evaluated whether muscle temperature affects BoNT-A uptake (at least in vitro) (55) but firm conclusions cannot be drawn.

In considering more generalized anaesthesia, nitrous oxide was shown to be more effective than rectal midazolam in a double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial in 50 children with cerebral palsy (CP). Nitrous oxide had the advantage of less post-procedural sedation (56). However, a more recent study in children with CP, analgesia combining nitrous oxide and EMLA cream was less effective than expected for BoNT-A injections (57).

General anaesthesia (GA) can be used in patients with CP and adults, especially in those selected cases who show lack of cooperation, have severe conditions requiring extensive injections, or who have severe cognitive deficit (58).

To reduce injection discomfort, anaesthesia through skin cooling seems the most effective intervention. An empathetic injector may also help to alleviate discomfort (59).

The group recommends that analgesia, if available and required, is used during the procedure.

Injection guidance

Four main injection guidance techniques have been evaluated in clinical trials: needle placement under anatomical guidance (AG), electrical stimulation (ES), electromyography (EMG), and direct visualization by ultrasonography (US). Other techniques have been studied (fluoroscopy, computerized tomography (CT) scan, etc.), but data are sparse.

A number of descriptive studies have considered how to define anatomical landmarks that locate and target motor endplates (60–63).

Palpation, or manual identification of a muscle using anatomical landmarks is not accurate for all muscles; this has been demonstrated in both cadavers and patients (stroke and CP) (64–67).

The advantages of US over other guidance techniques include: direct and continuous visualization of the needle, the target, structures to be avoided and the injectate spread within the target structure. US has identified forearm muscles at distinctly different sites from those identified by anatomical guidance (62, 68, 69). Considering the results of injections, both US and EMG have been demonstrated to lead to better results compared with AG in wrist and finger flexor spasticity (70). US guidance seems to lead to better results on wrist and finger spasticity compared with AG (71). However, a recent study found no differences between US, ES and AG (72).

Supportive literature from lower limb studies show that the accuracy of injections in the gastroc-soleus muscle is higher with ES guidance than with AG. However, US guidance seems to lead to better results on triceps surae spasticity compared with AG and EMG (65)

Most studies show that instrumental guidance (EMG, ES or US) can improve accuracy of injections (73). Although there is no clear evidence that any of these is superior, the group strongly recommends the use of EMG and/or ES and/or US injection guidance to optimize muscle localization. Injection using only anatomical landmarks should be used only when other techniques are unavailable.

End-plate targeting

End-plate targeting considers the end-plate topography, but is also related to injection technique. Nerve and endplate distribution in some human muscles is quite well described (63, 74–77). It has been observed that the area of highest endplate density is an inverted V-shaped band 1 cm in width between the lower third and upper two-thirds of the muscle belly in human biceps brachii muscles (3, 61). A high-volume dilution (20 U/ml) and an endplate-targeted injection are superior to a low-volume, endplate non-targeted injection, when injecting the biceps brachii (46).

Although some muscles have well-defined motor endplate topography, others, such as the soleus and gastrocnemius, which have diffuse, or ill-defined endplates, may require a more even spread of injection, using multiple injections and larger injection volumes (1). Im et al. (78) demonstrated that a mid-belly injection in the gastrocnemius is no different in efficacy from injection in more anatomically endplate dense regions.

The consensus group acknowledged that end-plate targeting may be helpful for superficial muscles, such as the biceps or gastrocnemius, but none of the group is actively using this technique due to increased time to perform this procedure and the resultant increased pain for the patient.

Conversion ratio

Manufacturers’ product labels state that different formulations of toxin are not interchangeable or bioequivalent and conversion ratios have not been systematically studied between formulations. However, since real-world practice sometimes requires switching formulations, attempts have been made to investigate conversion ratios in both clinical studies and in practice. Conducted in variable patient populations, study results are wide-ranging and careful interpretation is recommended.

Conversion ratios of 1:1 to 1:11, between onabotulinum toxin-A and abobotulinum toxin-A, have been used in clinical studies (79–88). Although many authors considered 1:3 or 1:4 to be appropriate (89–95), some evidence suggests that conversion ratios differ between muscles (96).

Studies have shown a conversion ratio of 1:1 for incobotulinum toxin-A to onabotulinum toxin-A in CD and blepharospasm (97–103). This is reflected in the European SPC for incobotulinumtoxinA (35). In focal dystonia, a study showed that switching from abobotulinum toxin-A to incobotulinum toxin-A with a dose ratio of 4:1 was effective and well-tolerated (104).

Although no conversion ratio can be recommended at this time, if faced with a need to change formulations for practical reasons, the consensus group was comfortable using a conversion ratio of 1:1 between incobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA; there was no agreement on a conversion ratio between onabotulinumtoxinA and abobotulinumtoxinA

CONCOMITANT AND ADJUNCTIVE THERAPIES

BoNT-A injections are a part of spasticity management. The group agreed that BoNT-A injections should always be followed with a physiotherapy programme. Table II represents the techniques that are currently used by group members. However, we need to establish the optimal adjunctive therapy to be used alongside BoNT-A.


Table II. Adjunctive therapies: current use by group (n = 19)

Demetrios et al., in a Cochrane review, found only 3 RCTs (105–107) that assessed rehabilitation after BoNT-A (108).

Two recent reviews looked at adjunctive therapies post-BoNT-A in post-stroke spasticity (109, 110). Mills et al. performed a systematic literature review and concluded that there is high-level evidence suggesting that adjunct therapies may improve outcomes following BoNT-A injection. However, no results have been confirmed by independent replication; all interventions would benefit from further study.

Kinnear et al. also emphasized that the effectiveness of these therapies is uncertain, with the 95% CI sometimes spanning zero (110).

Casting, taping and splinting

Available literature on casting, taping and splinting for spasticity management post-stroke were reviewed, but due to the limited number of papers this review concentrates on casting (as there were more studies). A recent review (111) of the current evidence for casting as an adjunct therapy following botulinum toxin injection for adult limb spasticity concluded that adjunct casting of the lower limbs may improve outcomes following BoNT injections. The group also considered studies on casting/splinting and taping together, focusing on RCTs that had the highest impact and the highest PEDro scores (scale developed by the Physiotherapy Evidence Database to determine the quality of clinical trials: high quality=6–10; fair quality=4–5; poor quality=≤ 3) (112). The relevant studies are summarized in Table III. Four RCTs studied BoNT-A plus casting/taping/splinting in lower limb with positive results (113–116). Two studies (117, 118) investigated BoNT-A plus/minus taping in lower limb which a favourable trend towards the use of taping, but no long-term benefits. A retrospective study (119) concluded that serial casting may be an appropriate intervention following BoNT-A injection to prevent equinovarus deformity and improve quality of walking in chronic stroke patients. Another RCT (120) reviewed the use of BoNT-A plus casting/taping/splinting in the upper limb and found that adhesive taping was more effective than daily manual stretching combined with passive articular mobilization and palmar splint.

A common criticism of many papers is that they provide insufficient detail about injection technique (manual palpation, EMG, nerve stimulator or US guidance), the type of casting/splinting/taping or orthotics used. More robust studies are needed comparing BoNT-A and adjunctive therapy with casting/taping/splinting post BoNT-A with BoNT-A treatment alone. Future studies should also indicate the specific timeline and technique of casting/taping/splinting following injection of BoNT-A. Nevertheless, based on clinical experience, the group recommends the use of casting and/or taping and/or splinting, if available, especially if there is a high risk of soft-tissue shortening.


Table III. Summary of casting/taping/splinting studies plus botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A) in spasticity

Constraint-induced movement therapy

One study examined constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) in post-stroke patients in combination with BoNT (106). The PEDro score of this study was 6. Thirty-two patients were assigned to 2 groups and treated with BoNT plus CIMT or BoNT plus conventional rehabilitation (2 h per day, 3 days per week). In both groups, spasticity was better at 4 weeks and 3 months. There was a significant difference in the CIMT group at 6 months in terms of spasticity measured by MAS; utilization of the affected arm with a Motor Activity Log; and arm mobility assessed by the Action Research Arm Test. A weakness of this study was that there was no CIMT alone cohort.

The authors suggest that improvements could be attributable to several factors: improvement in strength and co-ordination in the affected upper extremity as a result of spasticity reduction and repetitive training, a change in learned non-use behaviours, or use-dependent cortical changes after the combination of BoNT-A and CIMT. Currently it is not known whether user-dependent cortical reorganization can occur in chronic patients with significant spasticity. Further research exploring CNS changes accompanying the observed motor gains is warranted (106).

The group recommends that physical and occupational therapy, particularly CIMT, is provided after toxin injection.

Extracorporeal shock wave treatment

The conclusion from the literature is that extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) reduces spasticity (alone and in combination with BoNT-A injections). A small meta-analysis of 5 studies showed that spasticity (as measured by MAS) improved immediately and at 4 weeks after ESWT compared with baseline (121). The usual target is middle belly or musculotendinous junction (1,500–3,200 I, 0.030 to 0.1 mJ/mm2 reported).

A recent randomized trial (122) investigating whether ESWT is non-inferior to BoNT-A for the treatment of post-stroke upper limb spasticity found that ESWT and BoNT-A caused similar reduction in spasticity of the wrist and elbow flexors (MAS); however, ESWT yielded greater improvement in wrist and elbow passive range of motion (PROM), and upper extremity Fugl-Meyer Assessment (UE-FMA) score. One RCT vs placebo showed that BoNT-A plus ESWT is more effective than BoNT-A plus electrical stimulation (ES) in the forearm (123). The mean outcome measure (MAS, SFS and VAS) in patients decreased in the BoNT-A plus ES group.

Used alone, ESWT can reduce spasticity at forearm and triceps surae following stroke (124–126). Three sessions provided a longer effect (16 vs 8–12 weeks) and greater hand function-wrist control improvement than one session (125). The mechanism behind ESWT is unknown, but it appears to be unrelated to a decrease in spinal excitability (127). The effects last up to 12–16 weeks (although no study with longer follow-up has been conducted). It appears to be well tolerated, with few or no adverse effects.

One publication in CP (128) compared BoNT-A injection plus 3 ESWT sessions with BoNT-A alone. At one-month, significant differences were found between groups in the injected muscles percentage of hardness (p = 0.021) and the MAS (p = 0.001), supporting the hypothesis that the combined effects of BoNT-A and ESWT derive from their respective action on neurological and non-neural rheological components in spastic muscles.

The group concluded that further standardization of treatment protocols including optimal sites, treatment intervals and intensities need to be established. In addition, long-term follow-up studies are needed to understand the mechanism of action and resultant muscle changes with repeated sessions.

Functional electrical stimulation

There are several advantages to combining functional electrical stimulation (FES) or electrical stimulation (ES) and BoNT treatment (129). Postulated mechanisms include: FES increases synaptic activity and increases BoNT-A uptake (short-term), FES increases mechanical spread of toxin (short-term); there is a direct effect of FES on spasticity (short- and long-term); or FES increases strength in antagonists, while BoNT-A decrease tone in agonists (long-term).

Two reviews (129, 130) have concluded that, overall, the studies have small sample sizes and varying quality, with PEDro scores ranging from 6 to 10. Thus, they lack the power needed to draw firm conclusions on the effect of FES as an adjunctive treatment with BoNT-A.

A recently published systematic review (109) provides a starting point for FES review of 8 clinical trials that have examined electrical stimulation in stroke in upper and/or lower limb spasticity. The authors concluded that “When compared with BoNT-A injection alone, we found evidence suggesting that the adjunct use of …electrical stimulation…(Level I)…resulted in improvement in Modified Ashworth Scores by at least one grade”.

It is not always possible to translate findings in one muscle to another at a different anatomical location, but, since we are considering effects on basic nerve functioning, it is likely that findings observed in one body region will be applicable to other areas. So, given the paucity of upper limb studies, reference should also be made to lower limb investigations.

It is not clear whether ES increases BoNT-A uptake or whether it modulates neural activity in the spinal cord or the brain. BoNT-A is taken up by neurones by binding to synaptic vesicle protein SV2. The intention of most of these studies would appear to be increasing toxin uptake by the SV2 receptors.

There is a need to define better the timing and duration of ES after BoNT-A injections. In their systematic review of electrical stimulation, Mills et al. (109) point out that the variables for the intervention (frequency, current pulse duration, intensity) as well as duration of treatment differed between the studies; as such, a meta-analysis could not be performed. Dosing ranged between 30 and 60 min per session, delivered between once daily to 6 times daily for 3 days up to 12 weeks.

Clinical outcomes have been mostly modified Ashworth scores, while physiological studies have considered drop in amplitude of compound muscle action potential.

The group recommends that ES of the injected muscles can be used, if available.

Other concomitant therapies

Two narrative reviews of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) as spasticity treatment have recently been published (130,131). However, the group concluded that it is too early to include these techniques as adjunctive therapy in stroke.

Most relevant studies of robotics have been conducted in the lower limb. A recent study (132) was conducted in 17 post-stroke patients who participated in daily rehabilitation sessions using the NEUROExos Elbow Module exoskeleton (BioRobotics Institute of Scuola Superiore, Sant’Anna, Italy). Results showed that the robotic exoskeleton can be safely used for post-stroke spasticity rehabilitation and that intensive early rehabilitation treatment may prevent the spasticity occurrence at a later stage.

The group concluded that it is too early to make recommendations on the use of robotics in rehabilitation, due to the paucity of evidence. However, as repetition is important in rehabilitation, robotics are likely to gain more importance in the future.

Self-rehabilitation

A Cochrane review (133) of tele-rehabilitation in stroke stated that there is insufficient evidence to reach conclusions about its effectiveness after stroke. A systematic and meta-analysis of randomized trials (134) showed similar results for Barthel Index, Berg Balance, and Fugl-Meyer scoring in home-based rehabilitation vs conventional rehabilitation, but the studies lacked spasticity outcome measures.

Another study considering home-based tele-supervising rehabilitation (30 min per day for 5 days per week) on physical function in stroke survivors (135), but again not using spasticity outcome measures, concluded that home-based tele-supervising rehabilitation is most likely as effective as the conventional outpatient rehabilitation for improving functional recovery in stroke survivors.

An RCT (136) in 35 outpatients used a 10-m timed walk, the “Timed Up and Go” test, distance covered in 6 min over an ecological circuit, and the stair test. The results strongly suggested that a standardized self-rehabilitation programme constitutes a useful adjunct to BoNT-A injections in order to improve gait-related activities.

However, a survey (137) found that physical therapy professionals are less accepting (than physiotherapy students, professionals and physicians) of the need to engage patients with post-stroke hemiparesis into Guided Self-Rehabilitation Contracts (137) (designed to increase their exercise intensity and responsibility level). There is a need to investigate this topic further using spasticity outcome measures in the context of BoNT-A use.

Since positive benefits are seen with repetition and task-oriented exercise, home-based and tele- rehabilitation, it is recommended that patients are trained to follow a self-rehabilitation programme for spasticity (lower limb) and post-stroke recovery (in general) to supplement their clinician-administered physiotherapy.

CONCLUSION

The use of BoNT-A and innovative techniques has facilitated a more individualized approach to treatment of post-stroke spasticity, which provides physicians with the opportunity to optimize outcomes and address multiple goals. Table I outlines the consensus view of best practice on the optimal use of BoNT-A within a multidisciplinary context, including use of adjunctive therapies that are commonly employed with BoNT A. BoNT-A usage and choice of adjunctive procedures should be made according to individual needs and treatment goals.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The ToxNet Group is supported by an unrestricted educational grant from Merz. Medical writing support was provided by Brenda McCleary and Jan Hawthorn, who were paid from this grant.

All authors developed the concept for the paper, critically appraised the literature and contributed to the discussion to reach a consensus. The content of the manuscript was directed and reviewed by the authors, who approved the final version before submission.

REFERENCES
1. Wissel J, Ward AB, Ertzgaard P, Bensmail D, Hecht M, Lejeune T, et al. European consensus table on the use of botulinum toxin type A in adult spasticity. J Rehabil Med 2009; 41: 13-25.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0303

2. Esquenazi A, Alfaro A, Ayyoub Z, Charles D, Dashtipour K, Graham GD, et al. OnabotulinumtoxinA for lower limb spasticity: guidance from a Delphi panel approach. PM R 2017; 9: 960-968.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2017.02.014

3. Simpson DM, Hallett M, Ashman E. Practice guideline update summary: botulinum neurotoxin for the treatment of blepharospasm , cervical dystonia , adult spasticity and headache: report of the Guideline Development Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Am Acad Neurol 2016; 86: 1818-1826.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000002560

4. Weinstein CJ, Stein J, Arena R, American Heart Association Stroke Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke, Nursing Council on Clinical Cardiology, and Council on Quality Care and Outcomes Research. Guidelines for adult stroke rehabilitation and recovery: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke 2016; 47: e98-e169.

5. Teasell R, Foley N, Pereira S, Sequeira K, Miller T. Evidence to practice: botulinum toxin in the treatment of spasticity post stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil 2012; 19: 115-121.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1310/tsr1902-115

6. Royal College of Physicians, British Society of Rehabilitation Medicine, The Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, Association of Chartered Physiotherapists in Neurology and the RC of OT. Spasticity in adults: management using botulinum toxin. National guidelines. RCP 2018. [Accessed 2018 May 11] Available from: https: //www.rcplondon.ac.uk/guidelines-policy/spasticity-adults-management-using-botulinum-toxin.

7. Simpson DM, Patel AT, Alfaro A, Ayyoub Z, Charles D, Dashtipour K, et al. OnabotulinumtoxinA injection for poststroke upper-limb spasticity: guidance for early injectors from a Delphi panel process. PMR 2017; 9: 136-148.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2016.06.016

8. Wissel J. Towards flexible and tailored botulinum neurotoxin dosing regimens for focal dystonia and spasticity - insights from recent studies. Toxicon 2018; 147: 100-106.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxicon.2018.01.018

9. Scottish Intercollegiate Network. Management of patients with stroke: rehabilitation, prevention and management of complications, and discharge planning. A National Clinical Guidline. NHS Evid 2010; SIGN (June). Available from: ww.sign.ac.uk/guidelines/fulltext/.

10. Holliday RC, Cano S, Freeman JA, Playford ED. Should patients participate in clinical decision making? An optimised balance block design controlled study of goal setting in a rehabilitation unit. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2007; 78: 576-580.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2006.102509

11. Ashford S, Turner-Stokes L. Goal attainment scaling for spasticity management using botulinum toxin. Physiother Res Int 2006; 11: 24-34.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pri.36

12. McCrory P, Turner-Stokes L, Baguley IJ, De Graaff S, Katrak P, Sandanam J, et al. Botulinum toxin a for treatment of upper limb spasticity following stroke: a multi-centre randomized placebo-controlled study of the effects on quality of life and other person-centred outcomes. J Rehabil Med 2009; 41: 536-544.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0366

13. Bensmail D, Hanschmann A, Wissel J. Satisfaction with botulinum toxin treatment in post-stroke spasticity: results from two cross-sectional surveys (patients and physicians). J Med Econ 2014; 17: 618-625.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3111/13696998.2014.925462

14. Poliziani M, Koch M, Liu X. Striving for more good days: patient perspectives on botulinum toxin for the treatment of cervical dystonia. Patient Prefer Adherence 2016; 10: 1601-1608.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S106560

15. Sethi KD, Rodriguez R, Olayinka B. Satisfaction with botulinum toxin treatment: a cross-sectional survey of patients with cervical dystonia. J Med Econ 2012; 15: 419-423.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3111/13696998.2011.653726

16. Yablon SA, Brin MF, Vandenburgh AM, Zhou J, Garabedian-Ruffalo SM, Abu-Shakra S, et al. Dose response with onabotulinumtoxinA for post-stroke spasticity: a pooled data analysis. Mov Disord 2011; 26: 209-215.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.23426

17. Pittock SJ, Moore AP, Hardiman O, Ehler E, Kovac M, Bojakowski J, et al. A double-blind randomised placebo-controlled evaluation of three doses of botulinum toxin type A (Dysport®) in the treatment of spastic equinovarus deformity after stroke. Cerebrovasc Dis 2003; 15: 289-300.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000069495

18. Gracies JM, O'Dell M, Vecchio M, Hedera P, Kocer S, Rudzinska-Bar M, et al. Effects of repeated abobotulinumtoxinA injections in upper limb spasticity. Muscle Nerve 2018; 57: 245-254.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.25721

19. Trompetto C, Marinelli L, Mori L, Puce L, Pelosin E, Serrati C, et al. Do flexible inter-injection intervals improve the effects of botulinum toxin A treatment in reducing impairment and disability in patients with spasticity? Med Hypotheses 2017; 102: 28-32.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2017.03.011

20. Harriss J, Simon O, Li J, Ellers-Lenz B, Roche N, Cantú-Brito C, et al. Physician characteristics in an international, non-interventional study of botulinum toxin formulations in treatment-naïve patients with spasticity (SPACE). Ann Phys Rehabil Med 2014; 57: e47.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rehab.2014.03.167

21. Wissel J, Bensmail D, Ferreira JJ, Molteni F, Satkunam L, Moraleda S, et al. Safety and efficacy of incobotulinumtoxinA doses up to 800 U in limb spasticity the TOWER study. Neurology 2017; 88: 1321-1328.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000003789

22. Burbaud P, Wiart L, Dubos JL, Gaujard E, Debelleix X, Joseph PA, et al. A randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial of botulinum toxin in the treatment of spastic foot in hemiparetic patients. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1996; 61: 265-269.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.61.3.265

23. Hesse S, Krajnik J, Luecke D, Jahnke MT, Gregoric M, Mauritz KH. Ankle muscle activity before and after botulinum toxin therapy for lower limb extensor spasticity in chronic hemiparetic patients. Stroke 1996; 27: 455-460.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.27.3.455

24. Kaji R, Osako Y, Suyama K, Maeda T, Uechi Y, Iwasaki M. Botulinum toxin type A in post-stroke upper limb spasticity. Curr Med Res Opin 2010; 26: 1983-1992.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1185/03007995.2010.497103

25. Rosales RL, Balcaitiene J, Berard H, Maisonobe P, Goh KJ, Kumthornthip W, et al. Early abobotulinumtoxina (Dysport®) in post-stroke adult upper limb spasticity: ONTIME pilot study. Toxins (Basel) 2018; 10: 1-12.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins10070253

26. Dressler D, Saberi FA, Barbosa ER. Botulinum toxin: mechanisms of action. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 2005; 63: 180-185.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0004-282X2005000100035

27. Poewe W, Deuschl G, Nebe A, Feifel E, Wissel J, Benecke R, et al. What is the optimal dose of botulinum toxin A in the treatment of cervical dystonia? Results of a double blind, placebo controlled, dose ranging study using Dysport. German Dystonia Study Group. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1998; 64: 13-17.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.64.1.13

28. Schramm A, Ndayisaba JP, Auf Dem Brinke M, Hecht M, Herrmann C, Huber M, et al. Spasticity treatment with onabotulinumtoxin A: data from a prospective German real-life patient registry. J Neural Transm 2014; 121: 521-530.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00702-013-1145-3

29. Hyman N, Glickman S, Sayer A, Richardson A, Dott C, Barnes M, et al. Botulinum toxin (Dysport®) treatment of hip adductor spasticity in multiple sclerosis: a prospective, randomised, double blind, placebo controlled, dose ranging study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2000; 68: 707-712.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.68.6.707

30. Comella CL, Jankovic J, Truong DD, Hanschmann A, Grafe S. Efficacy and safety of incobotulinumtoxinA (NT 201, XEOMIN®, botulinum neurotoxin type A, without accessory proteins) in patients with cervical dystonia. J Neurol Sci 2011; 308: 103-109.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2011.05.041

31. Evidente VGH, Fernandez HH, Ledoux MS, Brashear A, Grafe S, Hanschmann A, et al. A randomized, double-blind study of repeated incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin®) in cervical dystonia. J Neural Transm 2013; 120: 1699-1707.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00702-013-1048-3

32. Truong DD, Gollomp SM, Jankovic J, Lewitt PA, Marx M, Hanschmann A, et al. Sustained efficacy and safety of repeated incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin®) injections in blepharospasm. J Neural Transm 2013; 120: 1345-1353.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00702-013-0998-9

33. Allergan Inc. IC. Package insert Botox 2010. [Accessed 2020 Oct] Available from: DOI: https://media.allergan.com/actavis/actavis/media/allergan-pdf-documents/product-prescribing/20190620-BOTOX-100-and-200-Units-v3-0USPI1145-v2-0MG1145.pdf.

34. Beauford-Ipsen Ltd U. Package insert Dysport 2009. [Accessed 2020 Oct] Available from DOI: https://www.ipsen.com/websites/Ipsen_Online/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/10002305/DYS-US-004998_Dysport-PI-July-2020.pdf.

35. Medicines.org.uk. Summary of Product Characteristics. [Accessed 2018 May 11]. Available from: https//www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/4609/smpc.

36. Lanzhou C. Package Insert Prosigne 2010. [Accessed 2018 May 11] Available from: DOI: https://www.btxa.com/upload/page/3/document/55123b7d8a853.pdf.

37. Toth SI, Smith LA, Ahmed SA. Extreme sensitivity of botulinum neurotoxin domains towards mild agitation. J Pharm Sci 2009; 98: 3302-3311.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jps.21676

38. Shome D, Nair AG, Kapoor R, Jain V. Botulinum toxin A: is it really that fragile a molecule? Dermatologic Surg 2010; 36 Suppl 4: 2106-2110.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4725.2010.01702.x

39. Kazim NA, Black EH. Botox: shaken, not stirred. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 24: 10-12.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/IOP.0b013e3181607475

40. Dressler D, Altenmueller E, Bhidayasiri R, Bohlega S, Chana P, Chung TM, et al. Strategies for treatment of dystonia. J Neural Transm 2016; 123: 251-258.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00702-015-1453-x

41. Dykstra DD, Wieting JM, McGuire J, Kowalkowski T. Maximizing extraction of botulinum toxin type A from vials. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002; 83: 1638-1640.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1053/apmr.2002.34818

42. Niamtu J. Neurotoxin waste from drawing product through the vial stopper. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol 2014; 7: 33-37.

43. Kim SH, Hwang JH, Jeong ST, Lee YT, Lee PKW, Suh YL, et al. Effect of muscle activity and botulinum toxin dilution volume on muscle paralysis. Dev Med Child Neurol 2003; 45: 200-206.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0012162203000380

44. Shaari CM, Sanders I. Quantifying how location and dose of botulinum toxin injections affect muscle paralysis. Muscle Nerve 1993; 16: 964-969.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.880160913

45. Hu G-C, Chuang Y-C, Liu J-P, Chien K-L, Chen Y-M, Chen Y-F. Botulinum toxin (Dysport) treatment of the spastic gastrocnemius muscle in children with cerebral palsy: a randomized trial comparing two injection volumes. Clin Rehabil 2009; 23: 64-71.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215508097861

46. Gracies JM, Lugassy M, Weisz DJ, Vecchio M, Flanagan S, Simpson DM. Botulinum toxin dilution and endplate targeting in spasticity: a double-blind controlled study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009; 90: 9-16.e2.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2008.04.030

47. Barnes M, Schnitzler A, Medeiros L, Aguilar M, Lehnert-Batar A, Minnasch P. Efficacy and safety of NT 201 for upper limb spasticity of various etiologies - a randomized parallel-group study. Acta Neurol Scand 2010; 122: 295-302.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0404.2010.01354.x

48. Francisco G, Boake C, Vaughn A. Botulinum toxin in upper limb spasticity after acquired brain injury: a randomized trial comparing dilution techniques. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2002; 81: 355-363.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00002060-200205000-00007

49. Lee J, Sung I, Yoo J, Park E, Park S. Effects of different dilutions of botulinum toxin type A treatment for children with cerebral palsy with spastic ankle plantarflexor: a randomized controlled trial. J Rehabil Med 2009; 41: 740-745.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0418

50. Lee L-R, Chuang Y-C, Yang B-J, Hsu M-J, Liu Y-H. Botulinum toxin for lower limb spasticity in children with cerebral palsy: a single-blinded trial comparing dilution techniques. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2004; 83: 766-773.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PHM.0000137314.38806.95

51. Pascual-Pascual SI, Pascual-Castroviejo I, Ruiz PJG. Treating spastic equinus foot from cerebral palsy with botulinum toxin type a: what factors influence the results?: An analysis of 189 consecutive cases. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2011; 90: 554-563.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0b013e31821f6c40

52. Fung S, Phadke CP, Kam A, Ismail F, Boulias C. Effect of topical anesthetics on needle insertion pain during botulinum toxin type a injections for limb spasticity. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012; 93: 1643-1647.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2012.03.012

53. Irkoren S, Ozkan HS, Karaca H. A clinical comparison of EMLA cream and ethyl chloride spray application for pain relief of forehead botulinum toxin injection. Ann Plast Surg 2015; 75: 272-274.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000000121

54. Moon YE, Kim SH, Choi WH. Comparison of the effects of vapocoolant spray and topical anesthetic cream on pain during needle electromyography in the medial gastrocnemius. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2013; 94: 919-924.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2012.12.008

55. Poulain B, de Paiva A, Dolly JO, Weller U, Tauc L. Differences in the temperature dependencies of uptake of botulinum and tetanus toxins in Aplysia neurons. Neurosci Lett 1992; 139: 289-292.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3940(92)90573-P

56. Zier JL, Rivard PF, Krach LE, Wendorf HR. Effectiveness of sedation using nitrous oxide compared with enteral midazolam for botulinum toxin A injections in children. Dev Med Child Neurol 2008; 50: 854-858.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2008.03069.x

57. Brochard S, Blajan V, Lempereur M, Garlantezec R, Houx L, Le Moine P, et al. Determining the technical and clinical factors associated with pain for children undergoing botulinum toxin injections under nitrous oxide and anesthetic cream. Eur J Paediatr Neurol 2011; 15: 310-315.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpn.2010.12.006

58. Forrester M, Srinivasan J, Mihrshahi S, Waugh M, O'Flaherty S, Rice J, et al. Concious sedation or general anaesthetic for intramuscular botulinum toxin injections in children - a two-centre cross-sectional prospective audit. Eur J Paediatr Neurol 2012; 16: 215-217.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpn.2011.07.006

59. Picelli A, Vallies G, Chemello E, Gavras A, Castellazzi P, Meschieri A, et al. Influence of physician empathy on the outcome of botulinum toxin treatment for upper limb spasticity in patients with chronic stroke: a cohort study. J Rehabil Med 2017; 49: 410-415.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-2231

60. Harrison TP, Sadnicka A, Eastwood DM. Motor points for the neuromuscular blockade of the subscapularis muscle. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007; 88: 295-297.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2006.12.031

61. Amirali A, Mu L, Gracies JM, Simpson DM. Anatomical localization of motor endplate bands in the human biceps brachii. J Clin Neuromuscul Dis 2007; 9: 306-312.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/CND.0b013e31815c13a7

62. Bickerton LE, Agur AMR, Ashby P. flexor digitorum superficialis: locations of individual muscle bellies for botulinum toxin injections. Muscle Nerve 1997; 20: 306-312.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4598(199708)20:8<1041::AID-MUS18>3.0.CO;2-Y

63. An XC, Lee JH, Im S, Lee MS, Hwang K, Kim HW, et al. Anatomic localization of motor entry points and intramuscular nerve endings in the hamstring muscles. Surg Radiol Anat 2010; 32: 529-537.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-009-0609-5

64. Schnitzler A, Roche N, Denormandie P, Lautridou C, Parratte B, Genet F. Manual needle placement: accuracy of botulinum toxin a injections. Muscle Nerve 2012; 46: 531-534.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.23410

65. Picelli A, Tamburin S, Bonetti P, Fontana C, Barausse M, Dambruoso F, et al. Botulinum toxin type a injection into the Gastrocnemius muscle for spastic Equinus in adults with stroke. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2012; 91: 957-964.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0b013e318269d7f3

66. Chin TYP, Duncan JA, Johnstone BR, Graham HK. Management of the upper limb in cerebral palsy. J Pediatr Orthop B 2005; 14: 389-404.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01202412-200511000-00001

67. Yang EJ, Rha D wook, Yoo JK, Park ES. Accuracy of manual needle placement for gastrocnemius muscle in children with cerebral palsy checked against ultrasonography. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009; 90: 741-744.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2008.10.025

68. Delagi EF, Perotto A. Clinical electromyography of the hand. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1976; 57: 66-69.

69. Kristi Henzel M, Munin MC, Niyonkuru C, Skidmore ER, Weber DJ, Zafonte RD. Comparison of surface and ultrasound localization to identify forearm flexor muscles for botulinum toxin injections. PMR 2010; 2: 642-646.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2010.05.002

70. Picelli A, Lobba D, Midiri A, Prandi P, Melotti C, Baldessarelli S, et al. Botulinum toxin injection into the forearm muscles for wrist and fingers spastic overactivity in adults with chronic stroke: a randomized controlled trial comparing three injection techniques. Clin Rehabil 2014; 28: 232-242.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215513497735

71. Santamato A, Micello MF, Panza F, Fortunato F, Baricich A, Cisari C, et al. Can botulinum toxin type A injection technique influence the clinical outcome of patients with post-stroke upper limb spasticity? A randomized controlled trial comparing manual needle placement and ultrasound-guided injection techniques. J Neurol Sci 2014; 347: 39-43.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2014.09.016

72. Zeuner KE, Knutzen A, Kühl C, Möller B, Hellriegel H, Margraf NG, et al. Functional impact of different muscle localization techniques for Botulinum neurotoxin A injections in clinical routine management of post-stroke spasticity. Brain Inj 2017; 31: 75-82.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02699052.2016.1218545

73. Grigoriu AI, Dinomais M, Rémy-Néris O, Brochard S. Impact of injection-guiding techniques on the effectiveness of botulinum toxin for the treatment of focal spasticity and dystonia: a systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2015; 96: 2067-2078.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2015.05.002

74. Van Campenhout A, Bar-On L, Desloovere K, Huenaerts C, Molenaers G. Motor endplate-targeted botulinum toxin injections of the gracilis muscle in children with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol 2015; 57: 476-483.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.12667

75. Warden JM, Roberts SL, Chang Y, Baker R, Boulias C, Ismail F, et al. Neuromuscular partitioning of subscapularis based on intramuscular nerve distribution patterns: Implications for botulinum toxin injections. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2014; 95: 1408-1415.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2014.01.026

76. Ye JF, Lee JH, An XC, Lin CH, Yue B, Han SH. Anatomic localization of motor entry points and accurate regions for botulinum toxin injection in the flexor digitorum superficialis. Surg Radiol Anat 2011; 33: 601-607.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-011-0779-9

77. Parratte B, Tatu L, Vuillier F, Diop M, Monnier G. Intramuscular distribution of nerves in the human triceps surae muscle: anatomical bases for treatment of spastic drop foot with botulinum toxin. Surg Radiol Anat 2002; 24: 91-96.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-002-0022-9

78. Im S, Park JH, Son SK. Does botulinum toxin injection site determine outcome in post-stroke plantarflexion spasticity? Comparison study of two injection sites in the gastocnemius muscle: a randomized double-blind controlled trial. Clin Rehabil 2014; 28: 604-613.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215513514983

79. Sampaio C, Costa J, Ferreira JJ. Clinical comparability of marketed formulations of botulinum toxin. Mov Disord 2004; 9 Suppl 8: S129-S1136.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.20066

80. Rosales RL, Bigalke H, Dressler D. Pharmacology of botulinum toxin: differences between type A preparations. In: Eur J Neurol 2006; 13 Suppl 1: 2-10.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-1331.2006.01438.x

81. Wohlfarth K, Sycha T, Ranoux D, Naver H, Caird D. Dose equivalence of two commercial preparations of botulinum neurotoxin type A: time for a reassessment? Curr Med Res Opin 2009; 25: 1573-1584.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1185/03007990903028203

82. Shin J, Jeon C, Ki W, YD, Kim. Clinical Comparability of Dysport and Botox in essential blepharospasm. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2009; 50: 334-335.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2009.50.3.331

83. Mohammadi B, Abdoulrahmani Balouch S, Dengler R, Kollewe K. Long-term treatment of spasticity with botulinum toxin type A: an analysis of 1221 treatments in 137 patients. Neurol Res 2010; 32: 309-313.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1179/016164109X12478302362734

84. Keren-Capelovitch T, Jarus T, Fattal-Valevski A. Upper extremity function and occupational performance in children with spastic cerebral palsy following lower extremity botulinum toxin injections. J Child Neurol 2010; 25: 694-700.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0883073809344621

85. Yun J, Kim J, Kim H, Chung, Kim J, Cho J, et al. Dysport and botox at a ratio of 2.5: 1 units in cervical dystonia: a double-blind, randomized study. Mov Disord 2015; 30: 206-213.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.26085

86. Wohlfarth K, Göschel H, Frevert J, Dengler R, Bigalke H. Botulinum A toxins: units versus units. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol 1997; 355: 335-340.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00004951

87. Marchetti A, Magar R, Findley L, Larsen JP, Pirtosek Z, Råužižka E, et al. Retrospective evaluation of the dose of dysport and botox in the management of cervical dystonia and blepharospasm: the REAL DOSE study. Mov Disord 2005; 20: 937-944.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.20468

88. Kollewe K, Mohammadi B, Dengler R, Dressler D. Hemifacial spasm and reinnervation synkinesias: long-term treatment with either Botox® or Dysport®. J Neural Transm 2010; 117: 759-763.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00702-010-0409-4

89. Marion MH, Sheehy M, Sangla S, Soulayrol S. Dose standardisation of botulinum toxin. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1995; 59: 102-103.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.59.1.102

90. Whurr R, Nye C, Lorch M. Meta-analysis of botulinum toxin treatment of spasmodic dysphonia: a review of 22 studies. Int J Lang Commun Disord 1998; 33 (Suppl): 327-329.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/13682829809179445

91. Sampaio C, Ferreira JJ, Simões F, Rosas MJ, Magalhães M, Correia AP, et al. DYSBOT: a single-blind, randomized parallel study to determine whether any differences can be detected in the efficacy and tolerability of two formulations of botulinum toxin type A-dysport and botox-assuming a ratio of 4: 1. Mov Disord 1997; 12: 1013-1018.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.870120627

92. Odergren T, Hjaltason H, Kaakkola S, Solders G, Hanko J, Fehling C, et al. A double blind, randomised, parallel group study to investigate the dose equivalence of Dysport® and Botox® in the treatment of cervical dystonia. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1998; 64: 6-12.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.64.1.6

93. Ranoux D, Gury C, Fondarai J, Mas JL, Zuber M. Respective potencies of botox and dysport: a double blind, randomised, crossover study in cervical dystonia. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2002; 72: 459-462.

94. Brockmann K, Schweitzer K, Beck G, Wächter T. Comparison of different preparations of botulinumtoxin a in the treatment of cervical dystonia. Neurol Asia 2012; 17: 15-119.

95. Poewe W. Respective potencies of botox and dysport: a double blind, randomised, crossover study in cervical dystonia. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2002; 72: 430.

96. Tapias G, Garcia-Romero M, Crespo C, Cuesta M, Forne C, Pascual-Pascual SI. Cost-minimization analysis in the treatment of spasticity in children with cerebral palsy with botulinum toxin type A: an observational, longitudinal, retrospective study. Farm Hosp 2016; 40: 412-416.

97. Benecke R, Jost WH, Kanovsky P, Ruzicka E, Comes G, Grafe S. A new botulinum toxin type A free of complexing proteins for treatment of cervical dystonia. Neurology 2005; 64: 1949-1951.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1212/01.WNL.0000163767.99354.C3

98. Roggenkämper P, Jost WH, Bihari K, Comes G, Grafe S. Efficacy and safety of a new botulinum toxin type A free of complexing proteins in the treatment of blepharospasm. J Neural Transm 2006; 113: 303-312.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00702-005-0323-3

99. Jost WH, Kohl A, Brinkmann S, Comes G. Efficacy and tolerability of a botulinum toxin type a free of complexing proteins (NT 201) compared with commercially available botulinum toxin type a (BOTOX®) in healthy volunteers. J Neural Transm 2005; 112: 905-913.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00702-004-0234-8

100. Park J, Lee MS, Harrison AR. Profle of xeomin® (incobotulinumtoxina) for the treatment of blepharospasm. Clin Ophthalmol 2011; 5: 725-732.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S13978

101. Zoons E, Dijkgraaf MGW, Dijk JM, van Schaik IN, Tijssen MA. Botulinum toxin as treatment for focal dystonia: a systematic review of the pharmaco-therapeutic and pharmaco-economic value. J Neurol 2012; 259: 2519-2526.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-012-6510-x

102. Dressler D. Routine use of xeomin in patients previously treated with botox: long term results. Eur J Neurol 2009; 16 (Suppl 2): 2-5.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-1331.2009.02877.x

103. Scaglione F. Conversion ratio between botox®, Dysport®, and Xeomin® in clinical practice. Toxins (Basel) 2016; 8: piiE65.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins8030065

104. Grosset DG, Tyrrell EG, Grosset KA. Switch from abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport®) to incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin®) botulinum toxin formulation: a review of 257 cases. J Rehabil Med 2015; 47: 183-186.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-1895

105. Lai JM, Francisco GE, Willis FB. Dynamic splinting after treatment with botulinum toxin type-A: a randomized controlled pilot study. Adv Ther 2009; 26: 241-248.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-008-0139-2

106. Sun S-F, Hsu C-W, Sun H-P, Hwang C-W, Yang C-L, Wang J-L. Combined botulinum toxin type A with modified constraint-induced movement therapy for chronic stroke patients with upper extremity spasticity: a randomized controlled study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2010; 24: 34-41.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968309341060

107. Weber DJ, Skidmore ER, Niyonkuru C, Chang CL, Huber LM, Munin MC. Cyclic functional electrical stimulation does not enhance gains in hand grasp function when used as an adjunct to onabotulinumtoxin A and Task practice therapy: a single-blind, randomized controlled pilot study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010; 91: 679-686.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2010.01.010

108. Demetrios M, Khan F, Turner-Stokes L, Brand C, McSweeney S. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation following botulinum toxin and other focal intramuscular treatment for post-stroke spasticity. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev 2013 (6): CD009689.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009689.pub2

109. Mills PB, Finlayson H, Sudol M, O'Connor R. Systematic review of adjunct therapies to improve outcomes following botulinum toxin injection for treatment of limb spasticity. Clin Rehabil 2016; 30: 537-548.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215515593783

110. Kinnear BZ, Lannin NA, Cusick A, Harvey LA, Rawicki B. Rehabilitation therapies after botulinum toxin-a injection to manage limb spasticity: a systematic review. Phys Ther 2014; 94: 1569-1581.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20130408

111. Farag J, Reebye R, Ganzert C, Mills P. Does casting after botulinum toxin injection improve outcomes in adults with limb spasticity? A systematic review. J Rehabil Med 2020; 52: jrm00005.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-2629

112. PEDro Physiotherapy Evidence Database. Available from: https: //www.pedro.org.au/.

113. Carda S1, Invernizzi M, Baricich A, Cisari C. Casting, taping or stretching after botulinum toxin type A for spastic equinus foot: a single-blind randomized trial on adult stroke patients. Clin Rehabil 2011; 25: 1119-1927.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215511405080

114. Farina S, Migliorini S, Gandolfi M, Bertolasi L, Casarotto M, Manganotti P, Fiaschi A, Smania N. Combined effects of botulinum toxin and casting treatments on lower limb spasticity after stroke. Funct Neurol 2008; 23: 87-91

115. Baricich A, Carda S, Bertoni M, Maderna L, Cisari C. A single-blinded, randomized study of botulinum toxin type A combined with non-pharmacological treatment for spastic foot. J Rehabil Med 2008; 40: 870-872.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0251

116. Verplancke D, Snape S, Salisbury CF, Jones PW, Ward AB. A randomized controlled trial of botulinum toxin on lower limb spasticity following acute acquired severe brain injury. Clin Rehabil 2005; 19: 117-125.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/0269215505cr827oa

117. Karadag-Saygi E E, Cubukcu-Aydoseli K, Kablan N, Ofluoglu D. Role of kinesiology taping combined with botulinum toxin to reduce plantar flexors spasticity after stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil 2010; 17: 318-320.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1310/tsr1704-318

118. Reiter F, Danni M, Lagalla G, Ceravolo G, Provinciali L. Low-dose botulinum toxin with ankle taping for treatment of spastic equinovarus foot after stroke. Arch Phys Med. Rehabil 1998; 79: 532-535.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-9993(98)90068-5

119. Yasar E, Tok F, Safaz I, Balaban B, Yilmaz B, Alaca R. The efficacy of serial casting after botulinum toxin A injection in improving equinovarus deformity in patients with chronic stroke. Brain Inj 2010; 24: 736-739.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/02699051003610524

120. Santamato A, Micello MF, Panza F, Fortunato F, Picelli A, Smania N, Logroscino G, Fiore P, Ranieri M. Adhesive taping vs. daily manual muscle stretching and splinting after botulinum toxin type A injection for wrist and fingers spastic overactivity in stroke patients: a randomized controlled trial. J Neurol Sci 2015; 350: 1-6.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2015.01.033

121. Lee J-Y, Kim S-N, Lee I-S, Jung H, Lee K-S, Koh S-E. Effects of extracorporeal shock wave therapy on spasticity in patients after brain injury: a meta-analysis. J Phys Ther Sci 2014; 26: 1641-1647.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1589/jpts.26.1641

122. Wu Y-T, Yu H-K, Chen L-R, Chang C-N, Chen Y-M, Hu G-C. Extracorporeal shock waves versus botulinum toxin type A in the treatment of post-stroke upper limb spasticity - a randomized, noninferiority trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2018; 2018; 99: 2143-2150.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2018.05.035

123. Santamato A, Notarnicola A, Panza F, Ranieri M, Micello MF, Manganotti P, et al. SBOTE study: extracorporeal shock wave therapy versus electrical stimulation after botulinum toxin type a injection for post-stroke spasticity-a prospective randomized trial. Ultrasound Med Biol 2013; 39: 283-291.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2012.09.019

124. Manganotti P, Amelio E. Long-term effect of shock wave therapy on upper limb hypertonia in patients affected by stroke. Stroke 2005; 36: 1967-1971.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000177880.06663.5c

125. Li T-Y, Chang C-Y, Chou Y-C, Chen L-C, Chu H-Y, Chiang S-L, et al. Effect of radial shock wave therapy on spasticity of the upper limb in patients with chronic stroke. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016; 95: e3544.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000003544

126. Moon S, Kim M, Jung S, Son S, JH L, H S, et al. The effect of extracorporeal shock wave therapy on lower limb spasticity in. Ann Rehabil Med 2013; 37: 461-470.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5535/arm.2013.37.4.461

127. Sohn MK, Cho KH, Kim Y-J, Hwang SL. Spasticity and electrophysiologic changes after extracorporeal shock wave therapy on gastrocnemius. Ann Rehabil Med 2011; 35: 599-604.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5535/arm.2011.35.5.599

128. Picelli A, La Marchina E, Gajofatto F, Pontillo A, Vangelista A, Filippini R, et al. Sonographic and clinical effects of botulinum toxin Type A combined with extracorporeal shock wave therapy on spastic muscles of children with cerebral palsy. Dev Neurorehabil 2017; 20: 160-164.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/17518423.2015.1105320

129. Wilkenfeld AJL. Review of electrical stimulation, botulinum toxin, and their combination for spastic drop foot. J Rehabil Res Dev 2013; 50: 315.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2012.03.0044

130. Leo A, Naro A, Molonia F, Tomasello P, Saccà I, Bramanti A, et al. Spasticity Management: the current state of transcranial neuromodulation. PMR 2017; 9: 1020-1029.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2017.03.014

131. Naro A, Leo A, Russo M, Casella C, Buda A, Crespantini A, et al. Breakthroughs in the spasticity management: are non-pharmacological treatments the future? J Clin Neurosci 2017; 39: 16-27.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2017.02.044

132. Crea S, Cempini M, Mazzoleni S, Carrozza MC, Posteraro F, Vitiello N. Phase-II clinical validation of a powered exoskeleton for the treatment of elbow spasticity. Front Neurosci 2017; 11: 261.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2017.00261

133. Laver KE, Schoene D, Crotty M, George S, Lannin NA, Sherrington C. Telerehabilitation services for stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; (12) CD010255.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010255.pub2

134. Chen J, Jin W, Zhang X-X, Xu W, Liu X-N, Ren C-C. Telerehabilitation approaches for stroke patients: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2015; 24: 2660-2668.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2015.09.014

135. Chen J, Jin W, Dong WS, Jin Y, Qiao FL, Zhou YF, et al. Effects of home-based telesupervising rehabilitation on physical function for stroke survivors with hemiplegia. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2017; 96: 152-160.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0000000000000559

136. Roche N, Zory R, Sauthier A, Bonnyaud C, Pradon D, Bensmail D. Effect of rehabilitation and botulinum toxin injection on gait in chronic stroke patients: a randomized controlled study. J Rehabil Med 2015; 47: 31-37.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-1887

137. Marsal C, Gracies JM, Dean C, Mesure S, Bayle N. Beliefs of rehabilitation professionals towards guided self-rehabilitation contracts for post stroke hemiparesis. Top Stroke Rehabil 2017; 24: 68-613.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10749357.2017.1373501

Comments

Do you want to comment on this paper? The comments will show up here and if appropriate the comments will also separately be forwarded to the authors. You need to login/create an account to comment on articles. Click here to login/create an account.
Advertisement