Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume 89, Issue 5 , Pages 982-987, May 2008

Comparative Impact of 2 Botulinum Toxin Injection Techniques for Elbow Flexor Hypertonia

  • Nathaniel H. Mayer, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA
    • Moss Rehabilitation Research Institute, Albert Einstein Healthcare Network, Philadelphia, PA
    • Motor Control Analysis Laboratory, MossRehab, Elkins Park, PA.
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorrespondence to Nathaniel H. Mayer, MD, MossRehab, 60 E Township Line Rd, Elkins Park, PA 19027
  • ,
  • John Whyte, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Moss Rehabilitation Research Institute, Albert Einstein Healthcare Network, Philadelphia, PA
    • Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA
  • ,
  • Gunilla Wannstedt, MS, PT

      Affiliations

    • Motor Control Analysis Laboratory, MossRehab, Elkins Park, PA.
  • ,
  • Colin A. Ellis, ScB

      Affiliations

    • Moss Rehabilitation Research Institute, Albert Einstein Healthcare Network, Philadelphia, PA

Abstract 

Mayer NH, Whyte J, Wannstedt G, Ellis CA. Comparative impact of 2 botulinum toxin injection techniques for elbow flexor hypertonia.

Objective

To compare 2 techniques of botulinum toxin injection for elbow flexor hypertonia.

Design

Parallel-group, randomized, controlled trial with blinded outcome assessment.

Setting

Laboratory, tertiary rehabilitation hospital.

Participants

Adults (N=31) with acquired brain injury (21 with traumatic brain injury, 8 with stroke, 2 with hypoxic encephalopathy) provided 36 sets of elbow flexors with Ashworth Scale scores equal to 3.

Intervention

Botulinum toxin type A (BTX-A) was injected with a motor point or a multisite injection technique after obtaining 2 baseline evaluations of the main outcome measures. Motor point technique involved decremental electric stimulation with delivery of 60U of BTX-A (Botox) in 2.4mL or 30U BTX-A in 1.2mL of preservative-free saline at single biceps and brachioradialis motor points, respectively. Distributed injection was performed using electromyographic feedback. Fifteen units in 0.6mL were delivered to each of 4 biceps sites and 2 brachioradialis sites. Total dose (90U) and total injection volume (3.6mL) were identical across groups. Only sites and injection techniques varied. The brachialis was not injected in either group.

Main Outcome Measures

Ashworth Scale, Tardieu catch angle, and root mean square surface electromyographic activity of the biceps, brachialis, and brachioradialis.

Results

Postintervention testing at 3 weeks showed no significant differences between groups (P range, .31–.82 across 3 outcome measures). However, within each group, significant treatment effects were observed on all outcome measures (all P<.01). For the uninjected brachialis muscle, electromyographic reduction was greater for the distributed group.

Conclusions

In 31 adults with acquired brain injury, single motor point and multisite distributed injections of low-dose, high-volume BTX-A had similar impact. Findings suggest that low-dose, high-volume strategies may have a potential role in reducing drug cost and helping clinicians stay within accepted limits for total body dose in patients with upper motoneuron syndrome requiring many injections.

Key Words: Botulinum toxins, Brain injuries, Injections, Muscle hypertonia, Rehabilitation

 

 Supported in part by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (grant no. H133A020505) and an educational grant from Allergan Inc.No commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article has or will confer a benefit upon the authors or upon any organization with which the authors are associated.Reprints are not available from the authors.

PII: S0003-9993(08)00071-3

doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2007.10.022

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume 89, Issue 5 , Pages 982-987, May 2008