Updates in the Treatment of Spasticity Associated With Cerebral Palsy
Spasticity affects up to 80 % of patients with cerebral palsy (CP) and often plays a significant role in limiting the child’s ability to function and participate in daily activities. The treatment of spasticity involves a multifaceted approach that includes pharmacological treatment with antispasmodics, physical therapy to maintain range of motion and prevent contractures, as well as a variety of orthopedic and neurosurgical interventions. Pharmacological agents currently used in clinical practice to treat spasticity in children have existed for almost two decades and continue to be used despite lack of solid evidence for their efficacy. Studies detailing safety profiles and optimal dosing in the pediatric population are greatly warranted. Intramuscular injection of botulinum neurotoxin is becoming increasingly popular for the treatment of segmental spasticity and current literature suggests it is safe and effective (Level A). Constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) are emerging as effective interventions in improving motor function in hemiplegic CP. However, the role of these as of yet >interventions in reducing spasticity remains to be clarified.
KeywordsCerebral palsy Spasticity Treatment Constraint-induced movement therapy Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation rTMS
The authors would like to thank Alba Rinaldi for the necessary secretarial assistance.
No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.
References and Recommended Reading
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance
- 1.Siegel IM. Historical vignette #9. Little big man: the life and genius of William John Little (1810-1894). Orthop Rev. 1988;1156(11):61–6.Google Scholar
- 3.Surveillance of cerebral palsy in Europe: a collaboration of cerebral palsy surveys and registers. Surveillance of Cerebral Palsy in Europe (SCPE). Dev Med Child Neurol. 2000;42(12):816-24.Google Scholar
- 15.Hoare BJ, Wallen MA, Imms C, et al. Botulinum toxin A as an adjunct to treatment in the management of the upper limb in children with spastic cerebral palsy (UPDATE). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010; (1):CD003469.Google Scholar
- 20.•Delgado MR, Hirtz D, Aisen M, et al. Practice parameter: pharmacologic treatment of spasticity in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy (an evidence-based review): report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the Practice Committee of the Child Neurology Society. Neurology. 2010;74(4):336–43. This study involved appraisal of the literature between 1966 and 2008 on the evidence for the safety and efficacy of drugs currently used in clinical practice for the treatment of spasticity in cerebral palsy. The results of this study illustrate that except for diazepam and BoNT-A, there is not enough evidence to refute or support the use of any of the other drugs used (oral and intrathecal baclofen, tizanidine, dantrolene, chemodenervation with phenol, alcohol or BoNT-B). This paper also highlights the need for further studies to evaluate the safety profile and optimal dosing of currently used medications..PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Hidecker MJ, Ho NT, Dodge N, et al. Inter-relationships of functional status in cerebral palsy: analyzing gross motor function, manual ability, and communication function classification systems in children. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2012.Google Scholar
- 33.Gunel MK, Mutlu A, Tarsuslu T, Livanelioglu A. Relationship among the Manual Ability Classification System (MACS), the Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS), and the functional status (WeeFIM) in children with spastic cerebral palsy. Eur J Pediatr. 2009;168(4):477–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 44.•Xu K, Wang L, Mai J, He L. Efficacy of constraint-induced movement therapy and electrical stimulation on hand function of children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy: a controlled clinical trial. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(4):337–46. In this randomized, single-blind, controlled trial, improvement in hand function was demonstrated in both patients who received CIMT alone as well as those who received both CIMT and electrical stimulation. However, only patients in the combined CIMT and electrical stimulation group showed modest, but significant, decrease in wrist tone. This suggests that improvement in motor function may not necessarily be accompanied by a decrease in spasticity..PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 45.•Wallen M, Ziviani J, Naylor O, et al. Modified constraint-induced therapy for children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy: a randomized trial. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2011;53(12):1091–9. This randomized assessor-blinded control trial, mCIMT was shown to be no more effective than intensive OT in improving the child's ability to perform activity of daily living or improving upper extremity function. The data provided also suggests that mCIMT does not result in a considerable change in spasticity as measured by the Tardieu or modified Ashworth scales at 6 months following the intervention..PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar