Keywords
arthrometry articular - muscle hypertonia - muscle spasticity - Zika virus infection
Introduction
First described in 2015, the congenital Zika syndrome (CZS) is characterized by brain
malformations resulting from intrauterine infections by the Zika virus.[1] At birth, the main clinical finding in children is microcephaly. However, other
signs become evident during development, including delayed motor skill acquisition,
difficult-to-control seizures, changes in muscle tone, and others.[2]
[3]
[4]
With special regards to the muscle tone in children with CZS, Pereira et al.[4] described clinical signs of pyramidal lesions, such as hypertonia and hyperreflexia,
in 93% of the subjects evaluated. Corroborating these findings, Tavares et al.[2] observed the presence of appendicular hypertonia in 94.8% of the children from their
sample. These findings, which may result from musculoskeletal hypertonia and daily
care,[5]
[6] suggest the need for therapeutic approaches to treat muscle tone changes in this
population.
In this context, the intramuscular application of botulinum toxin type-A (BTX-A) has
been described as an efficient therapeutic approach for controlling hypertonia in
patients with neurological conditions.[7]
[8]
[9] This application aims at the reversible chemical denervation of the muscle with
an increased tone, reducing inappropriate muscle activity.[10]
In children with cerebral palsy (CP), studies have shown positive outcomes after BTX-A
application, in muscle tone control and improving joint mobility and functionality.[7]
[11]
[12] In children with CZS, the procedure showed positive effects for sialorrhea control.[13] Moreover, in this population, the only study to investigate the BTX-A effects on
the musculoskeletal system described hypertonia reduction and joint mobility improvement
based on parental reports.[14] However, this last study did not describe the effects of this therapeutic approach
on the hypertonia level of specific muscle groups and the range of joint motion.
Considering the promising results of BTX-A and the need for a better understanding
of its impact in children with CZS, our study aims to evaluate its effects on muscle
tone and joint mobility in this population.
Materials and Methods
The present is a longitudinal case series conducted at Dr. Arthur Eugênio Azevedo
Support Center for Children with Microcephaly from the Professor Joaquim Amorim Neto
Research Institute (IPESQ), in Campina Grande, Paraíba, Brazil. The Ethics and Research
Committee of the Higher Education and Development Center approved this study (CAAE:
58018022.9.0000.5178). Before data collection, the person in charge of the support
center authorized file handling.
Sample
Sample recruitment was nonprobabilistic, occurring conveniently among children attending
the support center mentioned above. The inclusion criteria were (1) having a CZS diagnosis
confirmed by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), or imaging
exams performed in the first months of life; (2) presenting increased muscle tone
in at least one group with a grade higher than 1 per the modified Ashworth scale (MAS);
and (3) undergoing BTX-A application at the study's center. We excluded children with
fixed contractures, not evaluated by professionals from our specialized center at
least 3 months before or 4 weeks after the BTX-A application, and those receiving
the drug 6 months before the first evaluation.
Data Collection Procedures
We collected data from clinical records from the Dr. Arthur Eugênio Azevedo Support
Center for Children with Microcephaly. The children who met the study eligibility
criteria received BTX-A at this center and were included in this study. We extracted
general data, such as weight, head circumference, and presence of microcephaly at
birth, from their medical records, in addition to their age, weight, head circumference
at the time of drug treatment, and level of motor impairment according to the Gross
Motor Function Classification Measure (GMFCS). We also recorded information regarding
BTX-A administration, including the date and the muscles for medication injection.
The assessment of BTX-A effects relied on data from up to 3 months before (preassessment)
and 4 weeks after (postassessment) its administration. These data included muscle
tone evaluation by MAS,[15] and passive joint mobility determined by goniometric measurements.[16]
We used MAS to measure muscle resistance to passive movement and assesses muscle tone
in patients with neurological impairments, such as children with CZS[2] and CP.[7] According to this scale, resistance to passive motion ranges from 0 (no increase
in muscle tension) to 4 (rigid segment with no movement).[17] In our study, we assessed the following muscle groups of the upper limbs using MAS:
shoulder flexors and adductors, elbow extensors and flexors, wrist extensors and flexors,
and finger flexors. In the lower limbs, the muscle groups assessed were the hip flexors,
hip adductors, knee flexors and extensors, dorsiflexors, and plantar flexors.
We measured the maximum passive joint range of motion using a manual goniometer. This
assessment considered shoulder, elbow, wrist, hip, knee, and ankle joint movements
in the sagittal plane, as well as shoulder and hip joint abduction movements in the
frontal plane.
All children received BTX-A at the outpatient clinic from the Dr. Arthur Eugênio Azevedo
Support Center for Children with Microcephaly after use of 20 mg lidocaine hydrochloride
gel in the application regions. The same professional performed all procedures, considering
the hypertonia level and the needs of each child. The procedure did not require any
auxiliary instrument. Additionally, trained professionals with experience in treating
children with CZS and using the assessment instruments conducted all evaluations before
and after the BTX-A application.
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics characterize the sample, considering mean and standard deviation
values for continuous variables, such as the child's age and maximum passive joint
range assessed before and after the application of BTX-A. We calculated the absolute
and relative frequencies of categorical variables, such as the MAS scores before and
after the procedure.
Then, we proceeded to inferential statistics. The paired Wilcoxon tests were used,
considering MAS scores as dependent variables to evaluate the procedure's effects
on muscular resistance to passive movement. To evaluate BTX-A on joint mobility, we
initially calculated data normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Since data distribution
was non-normal, the nonparametric paired Wilcoxon test compared the variables. We
did all analyses using the Medcalc (MedCalc Software BVBA, Ostend, Belgium), version
19.0.7, and the statistical significance level was 5%.
Results
The total sample consisted of 13 children (9 boys), of whom 7 (53.8%) had microcephaly
at birth. At the time of BTX-A administration, the children were aged 70 to 89 (77 ± 7.1)
months. None of them could walk independently, 12 (92.3%) had spastic tetraparesis,
and all presented severe motor impairment, classified as levels IV (15.4%) and V (84.6%)
per GMFCS. [Table 1] shows the general individual data of the children participating in the study.
Table 1
|
Patient
|
Age at application (months)
|
Gender
|
Head circumference (cm)
|
Weight (kg)
|
Muscle groups for BTX-A application
|
|
At birth
|
At application
|
At birth
|
At application
|
|
1
|
71
|
M
|
32.5
|
45
|
3.32
|
16.5
|
Biceps brachii, wrist flexors, finger flexors, and triceps surae
|
|
2
|
77
|
M
|
32
|
45
|
3.3
|
19.02
|
Biceps brachii, wrist flexors, finger flexors, and hamstrings
|
|
3
|
77
|
M
|
33
|
49
|
3.06
|
23.24
|
Biceps brachii, wrist flexors, hip adductors, hamstrings, and triceps surae
|
|
4
|
70
|
F
|
28
|
41.5
|
3.01
|
17.83
|
Hip adductors and triceps surae
|
|
5
|
70
|
F
|
31.2
|
45.5
|
3.55
|
20.63
|
Biceps brachii, finger flexors, hamstring, and triceps surae
|
|
6
|
76
|
M
|
31
|
49.5
|
2.02
|
22.86
|
Hip adductors and triceps surae
|
|
7
|
78
|
M
|
30
|
40
|
2.95
|
11.21
|
Biceps brachii, wrist flexors, hip adductors, and hamstrings
|
|
8
|
87
|
M
|
30
|
45
|
2.78
|
17.94
|
Hip adductors, hamstring, and triceps surae
|
|
9*
|
76
|
F
|
|
41
|
|
16.59
|
Biceps brachii, finger flexors, hip adductors, and hamstrings
|
|
10
|
77
|
M
|
29
|
38.5
|
2.60
|
13.60
|
Wrist flexors and hip adductors
|
|
11
|
89
|
F
|
29.9
|
37.5
|
3.31
|
14.02
|
Hip adductors and hamstrings
|
|
12
|
88
|
M
|
29
|
45
|
2.64
|
17.83
|
Biceps brachii, wrist flexors, and hamstrings
|
|
13
|
89
|
M
|
32
|
47
|
2.76
|
24.86
|
Finger flexors, hip adductors, and triceps surae
|
The BTX-A was administered to the upper limbs of 9 children, especially at the biceps
brachii (n = 7) and the flexor carpi ulnaris muscle (n = 6). In the lower limbs, the
application occurred in all children in at least one muscle group, mostly hip adductors
(n = 9), hamstrings (n = 8), and triceps surae (n = 7). Caregivers reported no adverse
effects between assessments.
After application, no changes were observed in the maximum passive joint range for
any movement evaluated ([Table 2]). In contrast, regarding muscle tone, we noted significant differences in the hypertonia
degree on the right (p = 0.01) and left (p = 0.008) elbow flexor muscle groups, and right (p = 0.02) and left (p = 0.04) hip abductors, as shown in [Table 3].
Table 2
|
Joint movement
|
Preapplication
|
Postapplication
|
|
|
Median
|
Min
|
Max
|
Median
|
Min
|
Max
|
p-value
|
|
Shoulder flexion
|
|
Right
|
170
|
90
|
180
|
168
|
90
|
180
|
0.93
|
|
Left
|
156
|
90
|
180
|
150
|
90
|
180
|
0.68
|
|
Shoulder elevation
|
|
Righta
|
45
|
45
|
45
|
45
|
45
|
45
|
–
|
|
Lefta
|
45
|
45
|
45
|
45
|
45
|
45
|
–
|
|
Shoulder abduction
|
|
Right
|
160
|
90
|
180
|
150
|
110
|
180
|
0.68
|
|
Left
|
160
|
90
|
180
|
140
|
110
|
180
|
0.84
|
|
Elbow flexion
|
|
Righta
|
145
|
145
|
145
|
145
|
145
|
145
|
–
|
|
Lefta
|
145
|
145
|
145
|
145
|
145
|
145
|
–
|
|
Elbow extension
|
|
Right
|
0
|
0
|
120
|
0
|
0
|
60
|
0.12
|
|
Left
|
0
|
0
|
66
|
0
|
0
|
70
|
0.62
|
|
Wrist flexion
|
|
Righta
|
90
|
30
|
140
|
90
|
30
|
70
|
–
|
|
Left
|
90
|
0
|
140
|
90
|
20
|
70
|
1.00
|
|
Wrist extension
|
|
Righta
|
70
|
0
|
70
|
70
|
20
|
70
|
–
|
|
Left
|
70
|
20
|
70
|
70
|
20
|
70
|
0.81
|
|
Hip flexion
|
|
Right
|
110
|
90
|
125
|
125
|
90
|
125
|
0.29
|
|
Left
|
110
|
90
|
125
|
120
|
90
|
125
|
0.62
|
|
Hip extension
|
|
Right
|
10
|
0
|
10
|
10
|
0
|
10
|
0.62
|
|
Left
|
10
|
0
|
10
|
10
|
0
|
10
|
0.31
|
|
Hip abduction
|
|
Right
|
30
|
2
|
45
|
35
|
6
|
45
|
0.46
|
|
Left
|
24
|
0
|
45
|
30
|
8
|
45
|
–
|
|
Hip adduction
|
|
Righta
|
15
|
8
|
15
|
15
|
15
|
15
|
–
|
|
Lefta
|
15
|
15
|
15
|
15
|
15
|
15
|
–
|
|
Knee flexion
|
|
Righta
|
140
|
140
|
140
|
140
|
140
|
140
|
–
|
|
Lefta
|
140
|
140
|
140
|
140
|
140
|
140
|
–
|
|
Knee extension
|
|
Right
|
0
|
0
|
28
|
0
|
0
|
30
|
1.00
|
|
Left
|
10
|
0
|
135
|
0
|
0
|
40
|
0.06
|
|
Dorsiflexion
|
|
|
|
Right
|
20
|
10
|
30
|
0
|
0
|
20
|
0.81
|
|
Lefta
|
20
|
10
|
20
|
20
|
0
|
20
|
–
|
|
Plantar flexion
|
|
Right
|
45
|
30
|
45
|
45
|
35
|
45
|
0.21
|
|
Left
|
45
|
30
|
45
|
45
|
25
|
45
|
0.87
|
Discussion
Our findings demonstrated that the BTX-A application can promote a tone graduation
in children with CZS, despite not affecting joint mobility. Furthermore, we recorded
no adverse effects 4 weeks after the application.
Spastic hypertonia characterizes the muscle tone of most children with CP[18] and CZS,[2] often resulting in reduced mobility, contractures, and deformities potentially compromising
development and functionality.[19] Specifically in children with reduced mobility, such as those with GMFCS levels
IV and V, generalized hypertonia also results in pain, discomfort, and difficulties
in daily care.[20]
[21] Thus, for this population, simple tasks, such as changing clothes, can be difficult.
Despite the impacts of increased muscle tone on the health and quality of life of
children with severe motor impairments who are unable to walk, studies evaluating
the effects of BTX-A are scarce. This can be explained by the need to apply it to
multiple muscles and a higher risk of adverse effects.[7] On the other hand, a systematic review by Pin et al.[22] showed that BTX-A applied to children with GMFCS levels IV and V was efficient in
reducing pain, facilitating daily activities, and promoting motor skill improvements.
However, these outcomes should be viewed with caution since most studies had low or
moderate methodological quality.[22]
In children with CZS, only two of the studies investigated the effects of BTX-A use.
One of them evaluated its impacts in the sialorrhea treatment,[13] demonstrating an improvement in symptom severity and the occurrence of adverse effects
in a small portion of the sample (2/23). The other study investigated the effects
of BTX-A on spasticity and motor performance in a sample predominantly presenting
severe motor impairment (85%). Their results demonstrated that most parents reported
improvements in their children's range of motion or spasticity after the application
of BTX-A, without any adverse effects.[14]
Despite the importance of these results, previous studies did not demonstrate the
impacts of BTX-A application on the muscle tone of specific muscle groups evaluated
using scales such as MAS. This occurred because Armani-Franceschi et al.[14] evaluated only the sum of MAS scores, rather than the individual muscle groups evaluated,
which limited the detailed understanding of the impacts of BTX-A in children with
CZS.
Tavares et al.[2] proposed the evaluation of hypertonia of specific muscle groups by MAS in a cross-sectional
study in which most children with CZS presented axial hypotonia and appendicular hypertonia,
with the elbow flexors and hip adductors being more resistant to passive movement.
These muscle groups were among those most frequent receiving BTX-A in the present
studies (53.8 and 69.2%, respectively), unlike the study by Armani-Franceschi et al.,[14] in which 50% of the children received the drug in the long adductor and 35% in the
biceps brachii.
In children with neurological impairments, hypertonia of the hip muscles is common,
resulting in a higher susceptibility to dislocations and pain.[19] Specifically in children with CZS, a high prevalence of hip dislocation and sublocation
has been described, apparently related to the hypertonia level,[23] resulting in pain and functional limitations.[24] Given these findings, the reduced resistance to passive movement after the BTX-A
application observed by us may represent a therapeutic alternative for preserving
the hips of these children, relieving pain, and facilitating their daily care.
To date, no study has evaluated the impacts of hypertonia in children with CZS. Despite
this, the reduction in resistance to passive movement of the elbow flexors described
by our study may represent a positive point, facilitating daily care, play, and the
child's interaction with the environment. This can occur because children with severe
motor impairments present upper limb muscle tone grades, facilitating reaching tasks
and playing with toys.[7]
We observed no statistical differences regarding joint mobility based on the maximum
passive joint range of motion. This finding may raise some hypotheses. First is the
multicausal nature of reduced joint range of motion, including hypertonia and other
factors, such as muscle and tendon shortening, extracellular matrix abnormalities,
and others, that can compromise joint mobility in children with neurological impairment.[25]
[26]
[27] The second hypothesis is the need for a longer association between BTX-A and physical
therapy programs to achieve significant therapeutic outcomes.[28]
Despite the absence of differences in joint range of motion before and after BTX-A
application, during the study period, physical therapists monitored the children evaluated
and reported that their motor skills were better during the sessions after the procedure.
This observation may result from the reduced resistance to passive movement in adjacent
body segments. Although this finding was not an outcome of the present study, it should
be considered since facilitating handling in rehabilitation programs can lead to better
long-term therapeutic responses.
It is worth highlighting that our results were potentially influenced by monitoring
of the children by a multidisciplinary team, including physical therapists. However,
we did not control the number of sessions and interventions performed, which can be
a limitation of our study. Other limitations deserve consideration, such as the small
number of well-evaluated children, the variety of muscle groups for BTX-A application,
and the short follow-up period after the procedure. Therefore, we suggest that future
studies involve a larger number of participants with serial and longer-term follow-ups
to verify the prolonged effects of this application.
Conclusion
Despite the generalized hypertonia presented by children with CZS, our study only
performed the application of BTX-A in some muscle groups, defined individually and
based on the clinical evaluation of a specialized multidisciplinary team to avoid
overdose. This may explain the absence of adverse effects in the participating children
and suggests the need for a specialized and experienced clinical approach for this
population.
Treatment with BTX-A can promote muscle tone graduation in children with CZS, reducing
the resistance to passive movement. Nevertheless, this therapy could not change joint
mobility, as it is determined by the passive range of motion.
Table 3
|
Muscle group assessed
|
MAS preapplication, N (%)
|
MAS postapplication, N (%)
|
|
|
0
|
1
|
1+
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
0
|
1
|
1+
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
p-valor
|
|
Shoulder adductors
|
|
|
Right
|
5 (38.5)
|
1 (7.7)
|
2 (15.4)
|
3 (23.1)
|
2 (15.4)
|
0
|
4 (30.8)
|
6 (46.2)
|
0
|
3 (23.1)
|
0
|
0
|
0.15
|
|
Left
|
6 (46.2)
|
2 (15.4)
|
1 (7.7)
|
2 (15.4)
|
2 (15.4)
|
0
|
3 (23.1)
|
8 (61.5)
|
0
|
2 (15.4)
|
0
|
0
|
0.54
|
|
Hip flexors
|
|
|
Right
|
7 (53.8)
|
3 (23.1)
|
0
|
3 (23.1)
|
0
|
0
|
9 (69.2)
|
4 (30.8)
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0.09
|
|
Left a
|
7 (53.8)
|
3 (23.1)
|
0
|
3 (23.1)
|
0
|
0
|
8 (61.5)
|
3 (23.1)
|
0
|
2 (15.)
|
0
|
0
|
–
|
|
Shoulder flexors
|
|
|
Right
|
5 (38.5)
|
2 (15.4)
|
2 (15.4)
|
1 (7.7)
|
3 (23.1)
|
0
|
5 (38.5)
|
5 (38.5)
|
1 (7.7)
|
1 (7.7)
|
1 (7.7)
|
0
|
0.56
|
|
Left
|
4 (30.8)
|
4 (30.8)
|
1 (7.7)
|
1 (7.7)
|
3 (23.1)
|
0
|
3 (23.1)
|
6 (46.2)
|
1 (7.7)
|
2 (15.4)
|
1 (7.7)
|
0
|
0.08
|
|
Elbow extensors
|
|
|
Right
|
9 (75)
|
2 (16.7)
|
0
|
0
|
1 (8.3)
|
0
|
8 (61.5)
|
3 (23.1)
|
1 (7.7)
|
1 (7.7)
|
0
|
0
|
1.00
|
|
Left
|
8 (66.7)
|
3 (25)
|
0
|
0
|
1 (8.3)
|
0
|
9 (69.2)
|
4 (30.8)
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0.62
|
|
Elbow flexors
|
|
|
Right
|
2 (15.4)
|
3 (23.1)
|
1 (7.7)
|
4 (30.8)
|
1 (7.7)
|
2 (15.4)
|
6 (46.2)
|
3 (23.1)
|
0
|
2 (15.4)
|
1 (7.7)
|
1 (7.7)
|
0.01
|
|
Left
|
3 (23.1)
|
2 (154)
|
1 (7.7)
|
4 (30.8)
|
1 (7.7)
|
2 (15.4)
|
7 (53.8)
|
3 (23.1)
|
0
|
1 (7.7)
|
1 (7.7)
|
1 (7.7)
|
0.008
|
|
Wrist extensors
|
|
|
Righta
|
8 (61.5)
|
3 (23.1)
|
1 (7.7)
|
1 (7.7)
|
0
|
0
|
10 (76.9)
|
2 (15.4)
|
0
|
1 (7.7)
|
0
|
0
|
–
|
|
Left
|
8 (61.5)
|
3 (23.1)
|
0
|
2 (15.4)
|
0
|
0
|
10 (76.9)
|
2 (15.4)
|
0
|
0
|
1 (7.7)
|
0
|
0.87
|
|
Wrist flexors
|
|
|
Right
|
8 (61.5)
|
1 (7.7)
|
1 (7.7)
|
0
|
2 (15.4)
|
1 (7.7)
|
8 (61.5)
|
1 (7.7)
|
0
|
1 (7.7)
|
3 (23.1)
|
0
|
1.00
|
|
Left
|
9 (69.2)
|
1 (7.7)
|
1 (7.7)
|
0
|
1 (7.7)
|
1 (7.7)
|
10 (76.9)
|
1 (7.7)
|
0
|
1 (7.7)
|
1 (7.7)
|
0
|
0.56
|
|
Finger flexors
|
|
|
Righta
|
9 (69.2)
|
2 (15.4)
|
0
|
1 (7.7)
|
1 (7.7)
|
0
|
10 (76.9)
|
2(15.4)
|
0
|
0
|
1 (7.7)
|
0
|
–
|
|
Left
|
10 (76.9)
|
1 (7.7)
|
0
|
2 (15.4)
|
0
|
0
|
9 (69.2)
|
3 (23.1)
|
1 (7.7)
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0.68
|
|
Hip adductors
|
|
|
Right
|
2 (15.4)
|
2 (15.4)
|
1 (7.7)
|
5 (38.5)
|
3 (23.1)
|
0
|
3 (23.1)
|
5(38.5)
|
2 (15.4)
|
3 (23.1)
|
0
|
0
|
0.02
|
|
Left
|
2 (15.4)
|
2 (15.4)
|
1 (7.7)
|
5 (38.)
|
3 (23.1)
|
0
|
4 (30.8)
|
3 (23.1)
|
2 (15.4)
|
4 (30.8)
|
0
|
0
|
0.04
|
|
Knee extensors
|
|
|
Right
|
9 (69.2)
|
1 (7.7)
|
0
|
3 (23.1)
|
0
|
0
|
7 (53.8)
|
3 (23.1)
|
2 (15.4)
|
1 (7.7)
|
0
|
0
|
1.00
|
|
Left
|
9 (69.2)
|
1 (7.7)
|
0
|
3 (23.1)
|
0
|
0
|
6 (46.2)
|
4 (30.8)
|
2 (15.4)
|
1 (7.7)
|
0
|
0
|
0.91
|
|
Knee flexors
|
|
|
Righta
|
10 (76.9)
|
2 (15.4)
|
0
|
1 (7.7)
|
0
|
0
|
11 (84.6)
|
1 (7.7)
|
1 (7.7)
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
–
|
|
Left
|
9 (69.2)
|
2 (15.4)
|
1 (7.7)
|
1 (7.7)
|
0
|
0
|
12 (92.3)
|
0
|
0
|
1 (7.7)
|
0
|
0
|
0.37
|
|
Plantar flexors
|
|
|
Right
|
2 (15.4)
|
5 (38.5)
|
2 (15.4)
|
2 (15.4)
|
2 (15.4)
|
0
|
4 (30.8)
|
2 (15.4)
|
0
|
5 (38.5)
|
0
|
2 (15.4)
|
0.82
|
|
Left
|
1 (7.7)
|
5 (38.5)
|
3 (23.1)
|
2 (15.4)
|
2 (15.4)
|
0
|
3 (23.1)
|
1 (7.7)
|
0
|
7 (53.8)
|
2 (15.4)
|
0
|
0.49
|
|
Dorsiflexors
|
|
|
Right
|
6 (46.2)
|
3 (23.1)
|
2 (15.4)
|
0
|
2 (15.4)
|
0
|
8 (61.5)
|
3 (23.1)
|
0
|
1 (7.7)
|
0
|
1 (7.7)
|
0.64
|
|
Left
|
6 (46.2)
|
3 (23.1)
|
2 (15.4)
|
0
|
2 (15.4)
|
0
|
9 (69.2)
|
1 (7.7)
|
0
|
3 (23.1)
|
0
|
0
|
0.57
|