ArticleJournal of orthopaedics
Long-term efficacy and safety of repeated botulinum toxin a applications based on function and anesthesia type in children with cerebral palsy.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study evaluates the motor development of patients undergoing three or more repeated Botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A) applications in a tertiary pediatric hospital as well as the safety of three different types of anesthesia.
methodsSeventy-five children who underwent BoNT-A applications at least three consecutive times at six-month intervals and a total of 320 procedures were examined. Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) was employed in motor development evaluation. The three anesthesia methods (sedation analgesia, anesthesia with larengeal mask [LMA] and inhalation mask) were compared in terms of sedation, procedure, recovery, and total operation room time.
resultsFollowing the procedures, significant motor development was observed in 60 (80%) patients. In sedation analgesia group during the first three procedures, the recovery time was seen to be significantly shorter, while there was no difference between the anesthesia methods of any procedures following the fourth. Regardless of the type of anesthesia, the recovery times of those having undergone six or more procedures were longer than those with less than six procedures.
conclusionsAs repeated BoNT-A application provides motor step progress, it can be applied safely and effectively under anesthesia. Sedation analgesia provides an easier recovery compared to LMA and mask only within the first three applications. However, recovery time increases with four or more repeated applications, specifically increasing as the number of applications increases. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.