4.5 Review

Botulinum Toxin Injections for Treatment of Drooling in Children with Cerebral Palsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

CHILDREN-BASEL
卷 8, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/children8121089

关键词

botulinum toxin; drooling; cerebral palsy; sialorrhea; saliva glands

资金

  1. College of Medicine at National Cheng Kung University [NCKUMCS2020015]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BoNT-A injections are shown to be safe and effective for controlling drooling in children with cerebral palsy, with effects lasting over 3 months, but the dosage should not exceed 4 units/kg. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal dosage and target glands.
Background: We aimed to review and analyse the effectiveness and safety of botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) injections for drooling in children with cerebral palsy. Data sources: We searched the EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library) databases from inception to January 2020. Methods: We included randomized controlled trials and observational studies which (1) involved children with cerebral palsy, (2) used BoNT-A for control of drooling, and (3) provided quantitative evaluations of drooling before and after intervention with BoNT-A. Results: Twenty-one trials met the inclusion criteria. Most studies showed that BoNT-A injections are safe and efficacious as a treatment for drooling in children with cerebral palsy. Four trials had sufficient data to pool the results for the meta-analysis. Both the drooling quotient (p = 0.002) and drooling Ffrequency and severity scale (p = 0.004) supported this conclusion. Conclusion: BoNT-A injections are a safe, reversible, effective treatment for drooling control in children with cerebral palsy that can offer effectiveness for more than 3 months with few side effects. The dosage of BoNT-A should not exceed 4 units/kg. Further studies are required to determine the optimal dosage and target glands.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据