Investigating muscle selection for botulinum toxin-A injections in adults with post-stroke upper limb spasticity.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0885Keywords:
Muscle spasticity, botulinum toxin A, stroke, upper limb, rehabilitation, clinical reasoning.Abstract
BACKGROUND: Limited empirical information exists regarding botulinum toxin-A injector decision-making practices for adult upper limb post-stroke spasticity. The design of most studies prevents such an assessment, as injection sites and dosage are mandated by researcher protocols. This contrasts to usual injector practices, where individualized decision-making is the standard of care. DESIGN: Secondary data analysis from an Australian randomized controlled trial of 90 adults with upper limb post-stroke spasticity where experienced clinicians followed their standard clinical injecting practice rather than a mandated injection regimen. METHODS: Clinicians were hypothesized to tailor their injection practices according to the subject's degree of spasticity and/or the type of functional gain desired. Hypothesis testing was conducted using non-parametric analysis. RESULTS: Muscle selection and botulinum toxin-A dosage were not significantly associated with spasticity severity or with patient-identified goals. Between-site differences in injection practices suggested that injector beliefs, rather than patient characteristics, were the dominant feature driving botulinum toxin-A injection strategy for post-stroke upper limb spasticity. CONCLUSION: This result looks into the "black box" of rehabilitation, revealing significant variation in injector beliefs. Findings suggest that further scientific work is required to maximize the efficacy of botulinum toxin-A injections in post-stroke upper limb spasticity management.Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
All digitalized JRM contents is available freely online. The Foundation for Rehabilitation Medicine owns the copyright for all material published until volume 40 (2008), as from volume 41 (2009) authors retain copyright to their work and as from volume 49 (2017) the journal has been published Open Access, under CC-BY-NC licences (unless otherwise specified). The CC-BY-NC licenses allow third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for non-commercial purposes, provided proper attribution to the original work.
From 2024, articles are published under the CC-BY licence. This license permits sharing, adapting, and using the material for any purpose, including commercial use, with the condition of providing full attribution to the original publication.