4.5 Article

Are we underestimating the clinical efficacy of botulinum toxin (type A)?: Quantifying changes in spasticity, strength and upper limb function after injections of Botox® to the elbow flexors in a unilateral stroke population

期刊

CLINICAL REHABILITATION
卷 16, 期 6, 页码 654-660

出版社

ARNOLD, HODDER HEADLINE PLC
DOI: 10.1191/0269215502cr536oa

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To quantify the clinical efficacy of botulinum toxin type A in treating elbow flexor spasticity in a unilateral stroke population. Location: A spasticity clinic at a regional neurological rehabilitation centre. Study design: A convenience sample longitudinal study. Fourteen subjects with elbow flexor spasticity secondary to a stroke were recruited. Two repeated measures, one before and another four weeks after treatment, were taken to quantify clinical efficacy. Outcome measures: Elbow flexor spasticity was simultaneously rated with the modified Ashworth scale WAS) and quantified by measuring the surface EMG from the flexors using a custom-built device. Strength at the elbow (isometric), grip strength and upper limb function (Action Research Arm test) were also assessed. Treatment: Injections of botulinum toxin type A (Botox(R)) to the m.biceps brachii (mean dose 70 U), m.brachioradialis (mean dose 56.5 U) and m.flexor digitorum longus (mean dose 83.3 U). Results: Following treatment, spasticity (as measured by flexor EMG activity) reduced but the MAS was unable to detect this improvement. In some subjects, isometric flexor strength at the elbow as well as grip strength increased. This was contrary to the expected weakening following treatment with botulinum toxin type A and suggests an optimization of motor control. Conclusion: Treatment with Botox(R) reduces spasticity but does not necessarily cause a reduction in the force generating capabilities at the joint. The improvement in strength may have contributed to the improvements in upper limb function. The MAS is an inappropriate measure of spasticity.

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