4.1 Article

Comparison of Ultrasound and Electrical Stimulation Guidance for Onabotulinum Toxin-A Injections: A Randomized Crossover Study

Journal

MOVEMENT DISORDERS CLINICAL PRACTICE
Volume 9, Issue 8, Pages 1055-1061

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mdc3.13546

Keywords

botulinum toxin; dystonia; spasticity; ultrasound; electrical stimulation

Funding

  1. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke intramural funds
  2. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health [UL1TR001433]
  3. Allergan, Inc.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compared the efficacy of electrophysiologic guidance and ultrasound guidance in onabotulinumtoxin-A injections for the treatment of spasticity and dystonia. The results showed that both techniques were equally effective, but participants found ultrasound-guided injections to be more comfortable.
Background Botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT) injection is an established therapy for limb spasticity and focal limb dystonia. Comparative benefits of injection guidance procedures have not been rigorously studied. Objectives We compared 2 targeting techniques for onabotulinumtoxin-A (onabotA) injection for the treatment of focal hand dystonia and upper limb spasticity: electrophysiologic guidance using electrical stimulation (E-stim) and ultrasound (US). Methods This was a 2-center, randomized, crossover, assessor-blinded trial. Participants with focal hand dystonia or upper limb spasticity, on stable onabotA therapy for at least 2 previous injection cycles, were randomly assigned to either E-stim or US with crossover at 3 months. The primary outcome was improvement in dystonia or spasticity severity on a visual analog scale (VAS; 0-100) measured 1 month after each injection. The secondary outcome was participant discomfort assessed on a VAS. Repeated-measures analysis of covariance was used with linear mixed-model covariate selection. Results A total of 19 participants (13 men) completed the study, 10 with upper limb spasticity and 9 with dystonia. Benefit was equivalent between the 2 techniques (VAS least-square mean [LSmean] 51.5 mm with US and 53.1 with E-stim). E-stim was perceived as more uncomfortable by participants (VAS LSmean 34.5 vs. 19.9 for E-stim and US, respectively). Procedure duration was similar with the 2 procedures. There were no serious adverse events related to either approach. Conclusions US and E-Stim localization guidance techniques provide equivalent efficacy in onabotA injections for spasticity and dystonia. US guidance injections are more comfortable for participants. Both techniques are effective guidance methods, with US potentially preferable based on participant comfort.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available