Search

Spasticity is one of the most disabling symptoms in multiple sclerosis (MS). Botulinum toxin injection (BTI) is a first-line treatment for focal spasticity. There is a lack of evidence of a functional improvement following BTI in MS-related spasticity. To describe goal-setting for BTI in MS, and evaluate the degree of attainment, using goal attainment scaling (GAS) 4-to-6 weeks after injection session, a one-year multi-center retrospective observational study assessing goal-setting and achievement during BTI session in spastic patients with MS was set up. Following the GAS method, patients and their physicians set up to three goals and scored their achievement 4 to 6 weeks thereafter. Commonly used goals from three centers were combined into a standardized list and 125 single BTI sessions were analyzed. The most frequent goals regarded lower limb (LL) impairments (equinovarus foot, toe claw) or locomotion (stability, walking distance, clinging) and accounted for 89.1%, versus 10.9% for upper limb (UL), mostly for mild-to-moderate MS. Overall, goals were frequently achieved (85.77%) mainly when related to gait and mobility rather than hygiene and ease of care. This study gives an overview on the most frequent, relevant, and achievable goals to be set in real-life practice of BTI for spasticity management in MS.

Objective: To investigate the weight of visual and proprioceptive inputs, measured indirectly in standing position control, in patients with chronic acquired demyelinating polyneuropathy (CADP). Design: Prospective case study. Subjects: Twenty-five patients with CADP and 25 healthy controls. Methods: Posture was recorded on a double force platform. Stimulations were optokinetic (60°/s) for visual input and vibration (50 Hz) for proprioceptive input. Visual stimulation involved 4 tests (upward, downward, rightward and leftward) and proprioceptive stimulation 2 tests (triceps surae and tibialis anterior). A composite score, previously published and slightly modified, was used for the recorded postural signals from the different stimulations. Results: Despite their sensitivity deficits, patients with CADP were more sensitive to proprioceptive stimuli than were healthy controls (mean composite score 13.9 ((standard deviation; SD) 4.8) vs 18.4 (SD 4.8), p = 0.002). As expected, they were also more sensitive to visual stimuli (mean composite score 10.5 (SD 8.7) vs 22.9 (SD 7.5), p