Muscle structure and stiffness assessment after botulinum toxin type A injection. A systematic review




Abstract


Background


Botulinum toxin type A manages spasticity disorders in neurological central diseases. Some studies have reported that it might induce muscle changes.


Methods


We present a literature review abiding by the PRISMA statement guidelines. The purpose was to explore the structural and passive biomechanical muscle properties after botulinum toxin type A injections in healthy and spastic limb muscles, on animals and humans, as well as methods for evaluating these properties. We searched the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases using the following keywords: “Botulinum toxin” AND (“muscle structure” OR “muscle atrophy”) and, “Botulinum toxin” AND “muscle elasticity”.


Results


From the 228 initially identified articles, 21 articles were included. Histological analyses were performed, especially on animals. A neurogenic atrophy systematically occurred. In humans, one year after a single injection, the histological recovery remained incomplete. Furthermore, 2D ultrasound analyses showed a reduction of the gastrocnemius thickness and pennation angle. MRI volumetric analysis evidenced muscular atrophy six months or one year after a single injection. Passive muscle stiffness depends on these structural changes. On the short term, the biomechanical analysis showed an elastic modulus increase in animals whereas no change was recorded in humans. On the short term, ultrasound elastography imaging showed a decreased elastic modulus.


Discussion


To date, few data are available, but all show a structural and mechanical muscle impact post injections, specifically muscle atrophy which can linger over time. Further studies are necessary to validate this element, and the possibility of change must be taken into account particularly with repeated injections. Thus, in clinical practice, 2D ultrasound and ultrasound elastography are two non-invasive techniques that will help physicians to develop an efficient long term monitoring.



Introduction


The spastic paretic muscle is subject to structural changes compared to healthy skeletal muscles. These changes are independent from the initial etiology of the neurological lesion. The literature describes an increased variability of the size and type of muscle fibers, decreased numbers of sarcomeres, proliferation of the extracellular matrix (ECM) with an increased collagen concentration . When the first motor neuron is affected, muscle retraction can get settled under the influence of two main factors. The disuse of the paretic muscle or “functional immobilization”, which initiates muscle atrophy and reduces the number of sarcomeres by a disequilibrium of the protein-proteolysis synthesis balance in favor of the proteolysis . Chronic muscle hyperactivity maintains the muscle in a short position, reducing the longitudinal tension . Thus, the shortening of the muscle fibers and accumulation of conjunctive tissue are responsible of these changes in biomechanical viscoelastic properties of the muscles, with a decreased passive extension capacity .


Muscle changes contribute to functional impairments. Gait speed and step length have been significantly correlated to passive mechanical properties of the plantar flexor muscles, determined by the measure of the passive torque/joint angle ratio of the talocrural joint . For Dietz and Sinkjaer, the spastic muscle at rest is submitted to an overexcitability of the alpha motor neuron (presynaptic inhibition and increased activity of type Ia ascending fibers) with little changes during voluntary contractions. Thus, hyperreflexia is hardly involved in pathologic spastic movements .


Injections of botulinum toxin type A (BoNtA) are a first-line therapeutic method to treat focal spasticity ). Their action is triggered by the fixation on the SNARE proteins and inhibited release of acetylcholine (ACh) from the presynaptic terminals. The therapeutic objective is to decrease reflex muscle overactivity and fight muscle hypertonia. The functional benefit will affect gait patterns and movement amplitude . However, the impact of BoNtA injections on muscle structure and the stretching capacity of muscle tissue have rarely been reported in the literature. The challenge is to differentiate the consequences related to spastic paresis from those linked to the injections of botulinum toxin. We propose a review of the literature with the following objectives:




  • analyze changes in the structure and stiffness of muscle tissue described after an injection of botulinum toxin in one muscle of the limbs;



  • discuss the evaluation methods used.






Methodology


A systematic review of the literature was conducted abiding by the PRISMA recommendations ( www.prisma-statement.org ). We searched the Pubmed and Cochrane Library databases, using the following keywords


“Botulinum toxin” AND (“muscle structure” OR “muscle atrophy”) and, “Botulinum toxin” AND “muscle elasticity”. Articles stemming from this research were independently put aside by 2 authors (LM and BP) and were then evaluated. Articles were kept if they met the following criteria:




  • the study focused on the analysis of a striated skeletal muscle of the limbs, paretic spastic or healthy (to differentiate changes related to spastic paresis), in men and humans;



  • the study analyzed the consequences of injections of botulinum toxin on muscle structure and/or muscle tissue stiffness;



  • evaluation methods in the fields of histological, mechanical and medical imaging analyses were described;



  • the full manuscripts were published in English between 1990 and October 2014. References of the articles included were used to eventually complete the selection. In case of disagreement, a decision was taken after further discussion.



The methodological quality of the articles was evaluated using a specific scale developed based on the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology) principles . Each item was categorized, and the maximum global score is 28 ( Table 1 ).



Table 1

Quality analysis form used in the systematic review.










































Q1 Is there in the abstract an explanation of what was done and found?
Q2 Is the scientific context clearly explained?
Q3 Are the objectives clearly stated?
Q4 Is the sampling size indicated?
Q5 If yes, is the sampling size statistically justified?
Q6 Are the characteristics of the subjects (height, weight, sex, healthy or pathologic subject) described?
Q7 What is the design of the study? (0: retrospective study; 1: case study; 2: prospective study).
Q8 Is there a control group? (0: no, 1: contralateral member or non-randomized control group, 2: randomized control group).
Q9 How long is the follow up? (0: ≤ 1month; 1 ≤ 6 month; 2 ≥ 1 year)
Q10 Is the reliability of the evaluation method clearly described?
Q11 Are the results interpretable?
Q12 Are the limitations of the study discussed?
Q13 Is the conclusion clearly stated?

0: no description; 1: limited description; 2: good description.





Methodology


A systematic review of the literature was conducted abiding by the PRISMA recommendations ( www.prisma-statement.org ). We searched the Pubmed and Cochrane Library databases, using the following keywords


“Botulinum toxin” AND (“muscle structure” OR “muscle atrophy”) and, “Botulinum toxin” AND “muscle elasticity”. Articles stemming from this research were independently put aside by 2 authors (LM and BP) and were then evaluated. Articles were kept if they met the following criteria:




  • the study focused on the analysis of a striated skeletal muscle of the limbs, paretic spastic or healthy (to differentiate changes related to spastic paresis), in men and humans;



  • the study analyzed the consequences of injections of botulinum toxin on muscle structure and/or muscle tissue stiffness;



  • evaluation methods in the fields of histological, mechanical and medical imaging analyses were described;



  • the full manuscripts were published in English between 1990 and October 2014. References of the articles included were used to eventually complete the selection. In case of disagreement, a decision was taken after further discussion.



The methodological quality of the articles was evaluated using a specific scale developed based on the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology) principles . Each item was categorized, and the maximum global score is 28 ( Table 1 ).



Table 1

Quality analysis form used in the systematic review.










































Q1 Is there in the abstract an explanation of what was done and found?
Q2 Is the scientific context clearly explained?
Q3 Are the objectives clearly stated?
Q4 Is the sampling size indicated?
Q5 If yes, is the sampling size statistically justified?
Q6 Are the characteristics of the subjects (height, weight, sex, healthy or pathologic subject) described?
Q7 What is the design of the study? (0: retrospective study; 1: case study; 2: prospective study).
Q8 Is there a control group? (0: no, 1: contralateral member or non-randomized control group, 2: randomized control group).
Q9 How long is the follow up? (0: ≤ 1month; 1 ≤ 6 month; 2 ≥ 1 year)
Q10 Is the reliability of the evaluation method clearly described?
Q11 Are the results interpretable?
Q12 Are the limitations of the study discussed?
Q13 Is the conclusion clearly stated?

0: no description; 1: limited description; 2: good description.





Results



Selection of the studies


In all, 228 articles were initially identified ( Fig. 1 ). Thirty-two articles were deemed relevant after reading the titles and abstracts. Twenty-one were included in the review (11 were excluded because they did not meet the selection criteria). Fourteen studies focused on the structural analysis, 3 studies on muscle stiffness analysis and 4 studies on both structure and stiffness analysis. Overall, there were very few studies, with often a restricted population sample (from 1 to 56 patients in men) and various exploration methods.




Fig. 1


Selection diagram of the reviewed articles. * A common study in humans and animals. Some articles are referring to multiple methods and fields of investigation.



Quality of the reviewed articles


The quality of the reviewed articles is summed up in Table 2 . It is highly variable. Most studies were prospective ones, except for 2 case studies and a retrospective study . The descriptive quality of the experimental protocol, results as well as their interpretation and conclusion was adequate in most studies. The reproducibility of evaluation method was rarely described. No study proposed sample size calculations. The follow-up duration was quite short in most studies (≤ 3 months).



Table 2

Quality assessment.




































































































































































































































































































































































Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Total (max = 28)
Alhusaini et al. (2011) 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 0 1 1 2 2 2 21
Boyaci et al. (2014) 2 2 1 2 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 15
Choi et al. (2007) 2 1 1 2 0 2 2 1 0 1 1 0 2 15
Dodd et al. (2005) 2 2 2 0 0 1 2 2 1 1 1 0 2 16
Fortuna et al. (2011) 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 20
Frick et al. (2007) 2 2 1 2 0 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 20
Haubruck et al. (2012) 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 0 1 2 2 2 21
Kwon et al. (2012) 1 1 1 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 11
Legerlotz et al. (2009) 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 0 1 2 0 2 19
Ma et al. (2004) 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 23
Park and Kwon (2012) 2 2 1 2 0 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 17
Picelli et al. (2012) 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 18
Schroeder et al. (2009) 2 2 2 2 0 1 2 1 2 1 2 0 2 19
Shaikh et al. (2014) 1 2 2 2 0 2 0 2 1 1 1 1 2 17
Stone et al. (2011) 2 2 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 16
Thacker et al. (2012) 2 2 1 2 0 2 2 1 0 1 2 1 2 18
Tok et al. (2011) 2 1 2 2 0 2 2 0 1 0 1 1 2 16
Tsai et al. (2010) 2 2 1 2 0 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 18
Van Campenhout et al. (2013) 2 2 2 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 2 2 1 19
Vasilescu et al. (2010) 1 2 1 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 11
William et al. (2013) 2 2 1 2 0 2 0 0 1 2 2 2 2 18



Literature analysis ( Table 3 )


The methodological variability among the small number of studies, made it mandatory to conduct an evaluation based on changes in muscle structure and passive mechanical properties and according to the exploration techniques used .



Table 3

Summary table of the results.
























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Author Year Human/Animal Control group Age Population (number) Neurological Condition Muscle system BoNtA Number of injections and dose Measurement tool Study criteria Changes First–Last evaluation First changes Recovery
Alhusaini et al., 2011 Human No 4 to 10 years 16 CP TS + TA + TCJ unit Botox, 1, ? Dynamometer–Potentiometer TS + TA + TCJ unit stiffness None 6 weeks–6 weeks None ?
Boyaci et al., 2014 Human Yes Avg: 49 ± 16 months 16 CP GM, GL, So Botox, 1, 1,5U/kg in GM B-mode US Muscle thickness None in injected GM
Increase in GL, Soleus
1week pre-BoNtA–4 weeks post-BoNtA 4 weeks ?
Sonoelastography Strain ratio Decrease in injected GM and in GL
Red Pixel intensity Decrease in injected GM and in GL
Choi et al., 2007 Rat Yes Mature, 4 year 80 Healthy RF ?
4 groups 0, 1, 3, 9 ng/kg/day, daily for 4 weeks
Balance Body weight Dose-dependent weight loss D1–4 weeks Dose-dependent No
Histology Muscle structure Decrease of muscle fiber diameter
Increase of nuclei number
Increase of collagen
Increase of adipocytes
Dodd et al., 2005 Rat Yes + contralateral limb Mature, 4 months ? Healthy TS Dysport, 1
4 groups: 3 U, 6 U, 12 U, 18 U
Balance Muscle mass Decrease D1–D67 D67 No
Histochemistry MHC isoforms Decrease MCH IIx → IIa et I
Fortuna et al., 2011 Rat Yes Mature, 1 year 20 Healthy RF, VL, VM Botox, monthly, 3,5 U/kg Balance Muscle mass Decrease 1 months–6 months 1 month ?
Histology Contractile proteins % Decrease 3 months
Frick et al., 2007 Rat Yes + contralateral limb Mature 30 Healthy TA Botox, 1
3 groups: 0,625 U, 2,5 U, 10 U
Balance Muscle mass Dose-dependent decrease 128 days–128 days 128 days ?
Haubruck et al., 2012 Rat Yes Mature 36 Healthy GCM + TA + calcaneus unit ?, 1, 6 U/kg Dynamometer + lenght measure GCM + TA + calcaneus unit stiffness Decrease 8 days–8 days 8 days ?
Kwon et al., 2012 Human Yes 28 years 1 CP GCM, So Botox, 1, 20 U B-mode US Muscle thickness Increase 4 weeks–4 weeks 4 weeks ?
Sonoelastography Elastic modulus with color maps Softer muscles
Legerlotz et al., 2009 Rat Yes Juvenile, 4 weeks 30 Healthy GCM Botox, 1, 13 U/kg Balance Muscle mass Decrease 3 weeks–3 weeks 3 weeks ?
Histochemistry MHC isoforms MHCIIb → MHCIIx or IIa
Gel Electrophoresis Titin content Decrease
Ma et al., 2004 Rat Yes Juvenile, 1 month 34 Healthy GM, GL ?, 1 6 U/kg Balance Muscle mass Decrease 1 week–1 year 1 week 6 months
Histology: ME NMJ morphometry: width Increase 2 months 1 year
Park et Kwon, 2012 Human No Avg: 57 ± 22 months 17 CP GM, GL Botox, 1, 20 U/muscle Sonoelastography RTS score Decrease 4 weeks 4 weeks ?
Red pixel intensity Decrease
Picelli et al., 2012 Human No Avg: 59 ± 14 ans 56 Stroke GM, GL ?, 1, 250 U/GCM B-mode US Muscle echogenicity, Heckmatt Scale No echogenicity changes Injections less effective depending on echogenicity 4 weeks–4 weeks 4 weeks ?
Schroeder et al., 2009 Human Contralateral limb 31 and 47 years 2 Healthy GL Xeomin, 1, 75 U MRI Muscle signal High signal intensity in STIR sequence 3 months–12 months 3 months No
Muscle cross-sectional area Decrease
OM Muscle structure Neurogenic atrophy Reinnervation
EM Muscle ultrastucture
Shaikh et al., 2014 Human Yes Avg: 47 years (min: 26–max: 63) 12 Piriformis syndrome Piriformis Botox, inconstant injections number, 100 U MRI Maximal muscle thickness Decrease Inconstant Avg: 7,3 ± 5,2 months post-injection ? No
Muscle volume Decrease
Fatty infiltration Increase
Stone et al., 2011 Mouse No ? 140 Healthy GM, GL Botox, 1, inconstant doses and volumes Balance Muscle mass Dose- and volume-dependant decrease 4 weeks–12 weeks 4 weeks 12 weeks
Thacker et al., 2012 Rat Contralateral limb Mature 24 Healthy TA Botox, 1, 6 U/kg Dynamometer + Length measure (muscle fibers) Elastic modulus Increase 1 month–1 month 1 month ?
Histology Collagen content Increase
Tok et al., 2011 Human Contralateral limb Avg: 55 ± 14 years 26 Stroke GM, GL ?, 1, ? B-mode US Pennation angle Decrease 10 days–2 months 2 months ?
Fascicular lenght Increase
Muscle thickness Decrease
Muscle compressibility None
Tsai et al., 2010 Human No ? 5 Calf asymetry TS Botox, 1, 20 ng calf Meter Maximal calf circumference Decrease 4 weeks–26 weeks 4 weeks 26 weeks
Rat Yes ? 5 Healthy GCM 3 groups: 1,5 ng/kg 6 months repeated 1,5 ng/kg 6 months repeated 1 ng/kg EM Muscle ultrastucture Sarcomere distorsion 1 week–52 weeks 1 week 26 weeks
Balance Muscle mass Decrease
Van Campenhout et al., 2012 Human No Avg: 12 years 7 CP Proximal psoas Distal psoas Botox, 1, 2 U/kg/psoas MRI Muscle volume Decerase (proximal injected psoas) None (distal injected psoas) 2 months–6 months 2 months No
Vasilescu et al., 2010 Human Contralateral limb 3–10 years 7 CP Inconstant ? B-mode US Muscle echogenicity Aponevrosis echogenicity, Diamètre musculaire No description ? ? ?
Sonoelastography Elasticity pattern with color map Softer muscles
William et al., 2013 Human No 5–11 years 15 CP GCM, So Botox, 1, inconstant doses MRI Muscle volume Decrease in injected muscles
Increase in soleus muscle
5 weeks 5 weeks ?

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

Apr 20, 2017 | Posted by in PHYSICAL MEDICINE & REHABILITATION | Comments Off on Muscle structure and stiffness assessment after botulinum toxin type A injection. A systematic review

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access