Does giving segmental muscle vibration alter the response to botulinum toxin injections in the treatment of spasticity in people with multiple sclerosis? A single-blind randomized controlled trial
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online September, 2013
Does giving segmental muscle vibration alter the response to botulinum toxin injections in the treatment of spasticity in people with multiple sclerosis? A single-blind randomized controlled trial
To determine if segmental muscle vibration and botulinum toxin-A injection, either alone or in combination, reduces spasticity in a sample of patients with multiple sclerosis.
Design:
Single-blind, randomized controlled trial.
Setting:
Physical medicine and rehabilitation outpatients service.
Subjects:
Forty-two patients affected by the secondary progressive form of multiple sclerosis randomized to group A (30 minutes of 120 Hz segmental muscle vibration over the rectus femoris and gastrocnemius medial and lateral, three per week, over a period of four weeks), group B (botulinum toxin in the rectus femoris, gastrocnemius medial and lateral and soleus, and segmental muscle vibration) and group C (botulinum toxin).
Main measures:
Modified Ashworth Scale at knee and ankle, and Fatigue Severity Scale. All the measurements were performed at baseline (T0), 10 weeks (T1) and 22 weeks (T2) postallocation.
Results:
Modified Ashworth Scale at knee and ankle significantly decreased over time (p < 0.001) in all groups. Patients in group C displayed a significant increase of knee and ankle spasticity at T2 when compared with T1 (p < 0.05). Fatigue Severity Scale values in groups A and C were significantly higher at T0 [A: 53.6 (2.31); C: 48.5 (2.77)] than at either T1 [A: 48.6 (2.21); p = 0.03; C: 43.5 (3.22); p = 0.03] or T2 [A: 46.7 (2.75); p = 0.02; 42.5 (2.17); p = 0.02], while no differences were detected in group B [T0: 43.4 (3.10); T1: 37.3 (3.15); T2: 39.7 (2.97)].
Conclusion:
Segmental muscle vibration and botulinum toxin-A reduces spasticity and improves fatigue in the medium-term follow-up in patients with multiple sclerosis.
BarnesMPKentRMSemlyenJK, et al. Spasticity in multiple sclerosis. Neurorehabil Neural Repair2003; 17: 66–70.
2.
RizzoMAHadjimichaelOCPreiningerovaJ, et al. Prevalence and treatment of spasticity reported by multiple sclerosis patients. Mult Scler2004; 10: 589–95.
3.
BalantrapuSSandroffBMSosnoffJJ, et al. Perceived impact of spasticity is associated with spatial and temporal parameters of gait in multiple sclerosis. ISRN Neurol. Epub ahead of print 17January2012. DOI: 10.5402/2012/675431.
4.
SosnoffJJGappmaierEFrameA, et al. Influence of spasticity on mobility and balance in persons with multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Phys Ther2011; 35: 129–132.
5.
HymanNBarnesMBhaktaB, et al. Botulinum toxin (Dysport) treatment of hip adduttor spasticity in multiple sclerosis: a prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled, dose ranging study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry2000; 68: 707–715.
6.
GiovannelliMBorrielloGCastriP, et al. Early physiotherapy after injection of botulinum toxin increases the beneficial effects on spasticity in patients with multiple sclerosis. Clin Rehabil2007; 21: 331–337.
7.
HabekMKarniABalashY, et al. The place of the botulinum toxin in the management of multiple sclerosis. Clin Neurol Neurosurg2010; 112: 592–596.
8.
Varghese-KrollEElovicEP. Contralateral weakness and fatigue after high-dose botulinum toxin injection for management of poststroke spasticity. Am J Phys Med Rehabil2009; 88: 495–499.
9.
NomaTMatsumotoSEtohS, et al. Anti-spastic effects of the direct application of vibratory stimuli to the spastic muscles of hemiplegic limbs in post- stroke patients. Brain Inj2009; 23: 623–631.
10.
RollJPVedelJPRibotE. Alteration of proprioceptive messages induced by tendon vibration in man: a microneurographic study. Exp Brain Res1989; 76: 213–222.
11.
SteyversMLevinOVan BaelenM, et al. Corticospinal excitability changes following prolonged muscle tendon vibration. Neuroreport2003; 14: 1901–1905.
12.
RosenkranzKRothwellJC. Differential effect of muscle vibration on intracortical inhibitory circuits in humans. J Physiol2003; 551: 649–660.
13.
PolmanCHReingoldSCEdanG, et al. Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2005 revisions to the "McDonald Criteria". Ann Neurol2005; 58: 840–846.
14.
KurtzkeJ. Rating neurological impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology1984; 33: 1444–1452.
15.
BohannonRWSmithMB. Inter-rater reliability on a modified Ashworth scale of muscle spasticity. Phys Ther1987; 67: 206–207.
16.
KruppLBLaRocaNGMuir-NashJ, et al. The fatigue severity scale. Application to patients with multiple sclerosis and systematic lupos erythematosus. Arch Neurol1989; 46: 1121–1123.
17.
van der PuttenJJHobartJCFreemanJA, et al. Measuring change in disability after inpatient rehabilitation: comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel index and the Functional Independence Measure. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry1999; 66: 480–484.
18.
BrownMCEngbergIMatthewsPBC. The relative sensitivity to vibration of muscle receptors of the cat. J Physiol1967; 192: 773–800.
19.
NeckingLELundströmRDahlinLB, et al. Tissue displacement is a causative factor in vibration- induced muscle injury. J Hand Surg1996; 21: 753–757.
20.
HagbarthKEEklundG. The effects of muscle vibration in spasticity, rigidity, and cerebellar disorders. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry1968; 31: 207–213.
21.
Santos-FilhoSDCameronMHBernardo-FilhoM. Benefits of whole-body vibration with an oscillating platform for people with multiple sclerosis: a systematic review. Mult Scler Int2012; 2012: 274728. DOI: 10.1155/2012/274728.
22.
SchynsFPaulLFinlayK, et al. Vibration therapy in multiple sclerosis: a pilot study exploring its effects on tone, muscle force, sensation and functional performance. Clin Rehabil2009; 23: 771–781.
23.
SchieppatiM. The Hoffmann reflex: a means of assessing spinal reflex excitability and its descending control in man. Progr Neurobiol1987; 28: 345–376.
24.
KatzR. Presynaptic inhibition in humans: a comparison between normal and spastic patients. J Physiol Paris1999; 93: 379–385.
25.
HagbarthKEWallinGLofstedtL. Muscle spindle responses to stretch in normal and spastic subjects. Scand J Rehabil Med1973; 5: 156–159.
26.
NomaTMatsumotoSShimodozonoM, et al. Anti-spastic effects of the direct application of vibratory stimuli to the spastic muscles of hemiplegic limbs in post-stroke patients: a proof-of-principle study. J Rehabil Med2012; 44: 325–330.
27.
McNultyPAJankelowitzSKWiendelsTM, et al. Postactivation depression of the soleus H reflex measured using threshold tracking. J Neurophysiol2008; 100: 3275–3284.
28.
MurilloNKumruHVidal-SamsoJ, et al. Decrease of spasticity with muscle vibration in patients with spinal cord injury. Clin Neurophysiol2011; 122: 1183–1189.
29.
SiggelkowSKossevASchubertM, et al. Modulation of motor evoked potentials by muscle vibration: the role of vibration frequency. Muscle Nerve1999; 22: 1544–1548.
30.
RosenkranzKPesentiAPaulusW, et al. Focal reduction of intracortical inhibition in the motor cortex by selective proprioceptive stimulation. Exp Brain Res2003; 149: 9–16.
31.
Forner-CorderoASteyversMLevinO, et al. Changes in corticomotor excitability following prolonged muscle tendon vibration. Behav Brain Res2008; 190: 41–49.
32.
MarconiBFilippiGMKochG, et al. Long-term effects on motor cortical excitability induced by repeated muscle vibration during contraction in healthy subjects. J Neurol Sci2008; 275: 51–59.
33.
PaoloniMMangoneMScettriP, et al. Segmental muscle vibration improves walking in chronic stroke patients with foot drop: a randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair2010; 24: 254–262.
34.
PalomarFJMirP. Neurophysiological changes after intramuscular injection of botulinum toxin. Clin Neurophysiol2012; 123: 54–60.
35.
FrascarelliFDi RosaGBisozziE, et al. Neurophysiological changes induced by the botulinum toxin type A injection in children with cerebral palsy. Eur J Paediatr Neurol2011; 15: 59–64.
36.
CurràABerardelliA. Do the unintended actions of botulinum toxin at distant sites have clinical implications?Neurology2009; 72: 1095–1099.
37.
CurràATrompettoCAbbruzzeseG, et al. Central effects of botulinum toxin type A: evidence and supposition. Mov Disord2004; 19(Suppl 8): S60–64.
38.
LerdalAWahlARustoenT, et al. Fatigue in the general population: a translation and test of the psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the fatigue severity scale. Scand J Public Health2005; 33: 123–130.
39.
TomasevicLZitoGPasqualettiP, et al. Cortico-muscular coherence as an index of fatigue in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler2013; 19(3): 334–343.
40.
NichollLHobartJDunwoodyL, et al. Measuring disability in multiple sclerosis: is the Community Dependency Index an improvement on the Barthel Index?Mult Scler2004; 10: 447–450.
41.
FleurenJFVoermanGEErren-WoltersCV, et al. Stop using the Ashworth Scale for the assessment of spasticity. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry2010; 81: 46–52.
42.
RasovaKMartinkovaPVyskotovaJ, et al. Assessment set for evaluation of clinical outcomes in multiple sclerosis: psychometric properties. Patient Relat Outcome Meas2012; 3: 59–70.
