4.5 Article

TREATMENT OF SPASTICITY RELATED TO MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS WITH INTRATHECAL BACLOFEN: A LONG-TERM FOLLOW-UP

Journal

JOURNAL OF REHABILITATION MEDICINE
Volume 43, Issue 6, Pages 511-514

Publisher

FOUNDATION REHABILITATION INFORMATION
DOI: 10.2340/16501977-0811

Keywords

multiple sclerosis; spasticity; pain; rehabilitation; baclofen; ITB

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Spasticity is a frequent disabling symptom in patients with multiple sclerosis, which contributes to functional deterioration. Objective: To evaluate the long-term effect of intrathecal baclofen therapy in multiple sclerosis-related spasticity and to evaluate the side-effects of long-term therapy, and the doses of baclofen required. Methods: Fourteen patients with multiple sclerosis were followed up clinically for a mean of 62 months (range 19-137 months). Clinical evaluation was made using individual goals, modified Ashworth scale, and Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale. Results: Spasticity, measured with the modified Ashworth score, decreased in all patients by a mean of 1 point. The score on the Expanded Disability Status Scale improved in 2 cases. Prior to implantation, 10 patients (72%) reported severe pain. After implantation 3 improved and 7 became pain-free. The daily doses needed for treatment were highly individual. The effect of intrathecal baclofen on spasticity lasted observation time. One patient experienced progressive cognitive impairment as a side-effect of baclofen. Conclusion: Intrathecal baclofen is well-tolerated and the effect lasts for up to 12 years. A thorough continuous clinical assessment is required because the differentiation between symptoms of multiple sclerosis progression and side-effects of baclofen may be difficult. Intrathecal baclofen should be considered as an option for long-term treatment of patients with advanced spasticity. Pain control can also be achieved by optimized intrathecal baclofen treatment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available