Therapeutic Botulinum Toxin Injections for Spasticity Management: Best Practices and the Role of Injection Guidance Technologies

Introduction

Botulinum neurotoxin type A (BoNT-A) has become a cornerstone of spasticity management for patients with stroke, cerebral palsy, and other neurological conditions. By blocking acetylcholine release at the neuromuscular junction, BoNT-A reduces muscle overactivity and improves functional outcomes when integrated into comprehensive rehabilitation programs.[1][2] This article synthesizes current evidence on best practices for therapeutic BoNT-A injections, with particular emphasis on the role of injection guidance technologies in optimizing clinical outcomes.

Clinical Indications and Efficacy

The American Academy of Neurology provides Level A evidence supporting BoNT-A for upper-extremity spasticity with onabotulinumtoxinA, abobotulinumtoxinA, and incobotulinumtoxinA, as well as for lower-limb spasticity with onabotulinumtoxinA and abobotulinumtoxinA.[3] The FDA has approved onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox) for spasticity in patients 2 years and older, and incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) for upper-limb spasticity in adults and pediatric patients aged 2-17 years.[4]

Meta-analyses demonstrate significant improvement in spasticity as measured by the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS), with effects most pronounced in the first 6 weeks post-injection and waning between weeks 7 and 12.[5][6] Systematic reviews confirm robust evidence for BoNT-A’s effectiveness in reducing resistance to passive movement and improving self-care ability, though evidence for improvement in active arm-hand capacity remains limited.[7] Treatment of lower-limb spasticity resulted in significant improvement in MAS and enhanced 10-Meter Walk Test performance.[6]

Emerging evidence suggests that early BoNT-A administration—within 90 days of stroke onset—may enhance motor recovery, with patients showing faster and more pronounced improvements in upper-limb strength, sensorimotor recovery, and global disability than those treated later.[8]

The Importance of Accurate Muscle Targeting

Accurate targeting of overactive muscles is essential for successful BoNT injections.[9] The therapeutic effect of BoNT-A depends on precise delivery to motor points—the zones where motor nerve branches enter the muscle—because the toxin must reach neuromuscular junctions, which are clustered in restricted areas within skeletal muscles.[10]

Injection guidance methodologies available for clinical use include:

• Manual needle placement (anatomic landmarks and palpation)
• Electromyography (EMG)
• Electrical stimulation (e-stim)
• Ultrasound (US)
• Combined guidance (US + EMG or US + e-stim)[11]Evidence for Injection Guidance SuperiorityA Bayesian network meta-analysis provided the first quantitative evidence of the superiority of guided BoNT injections over non-guided injections for limb spasticity.[9] The established hierarchy ranks ultrasound first, electrostimulation second, EMG third, and manual needle placement last, though the difference between ultrasound and electrostimulation is minor.[9]

  Systematic review confirms strong evidence (Level 1) that instrumented guidance (US, ES, or EMG) is more effective than manual needle placement for:

• Spasmodic torticollis (EMG guidance)
• Upper limb spasticity in stroke patients

Spastic equinus in stroke patients and children with cerebral palsy[12]

Randomized controlled trials show that ultrasound-guided injections produce significantly greater MAS reductions and improved finger position at rest than manual needle placement for post-stroke upper limb spasticity.[13] EMG-guided injections similarly show superior spasticity reduction (mean MAS reduction 1.67 vs 1.25) and improved modified Barthel Index scores compared with anatomic landmark-based injections.[14]

Complementary Strengths of Different Guidance Modalities

Each guidance technique offers unique advantages that can be leveraged in clinical practice:

• Ultrasound provides real-time visualization of internal structures, enabling identification of safe trajectories and precise targeting of motor points—typically located at zones of maximum muscle thickness.[15][10] It also visualizes neurovascular structures, potentially reducing complications from vascular injury or unintended diffusion of toxins.[10]
• Electromyography uniquely provides information on muscle activity, confirming that the needle is positioned in active muscle tissue rather than adipose or fibrotic tissue.[11] This is particularly valuable for confirming the target muscle.
• Electrical stimulation is especially useful in patients who cannot voluntarily activate a selected muscle, as it confirms proximity to motor points without requiring patient cooperation.[11]

Rationale for Combined Guidance Approaches

Combined guidance techniques (US + EMG or US + e-stim) leverage the complementary strengths of each modality.[11] The theoretical advantages include:

• Simultaneous anatomical visualization and functional muscle localization
• Dual confirmation of proper needle placement
• Enhanced precision for deep or small muscles where anatomical landmarks are unreliable
• Improved safety through visualization of neurovascular structures while confirming motor-point targeting

Optimized innervation-zone targeting with lower doses and fewer side effects

Expert consensus recognizes combined guidance as a distinct methodology that may be particularly valuable for complex cases involving deep, small, or functionally critical muscles.[11][16]

Patient Populations Most Likely to Benefit from Guidance Technologies

Based on available evidence, the following patient populations show the greatest improvement with instrumented guidance:

1. Post-stroke patients with upper- and lower-limb spasticity—particularly when targeting deep or small muscles where manual palpation is unreliable [9][12]
2. Children with cerebral palsy and spastic equinus—Level 1 evidence supports the superiority of ultrasound and electrical stimulation over manual needle placement [12]
3. Hemiplegic patients with chronic spasticity—EMG-guided injections produce superior functional outcomes compared with anatomic landmark-based injections [14]
4. Patients requiring treatment of forearm muscles where function is critical—ultrasound guidance provides real-time visualization and safe trajectory identification [15]
5. Severely impaired patients unable to voluntarily activate muscles—electrical stimulation guidance confirms motor point proximity without requiring patient cooperation [11]

Practical Considerations for Clinical Implementation

Manual placement may suffice for large, superficial muscles; however, all instrumented techniques improve accuracy for deeper or smaller targets.[11] The choice of guidance modality should be individualized based on:

• Target muscle characteristics (size, depth, accessibility)
• Patient cooperation and the ability to voluntarily activate muscles
• Clinician experience and available equipment

Specific clinical scenario and treatment goals

The AAPM Consensus Guidance on Spasticity Assessment and Management emphasizes that BoNT-A treatment is most effective when combined with physiotherapy and adapted orthoses and should not be used as a stand-alone therapy.[3][2]

Safety Considerations

Adverse events with BoNT-A injections are generally infrequent and mild, with injection-site pain being most common.[1] Systemic adverse events can occur and are more likely in patients with severely impaired gross motor function, a history of dysphagia or aspiration pneumonia, or when BoNT-A doses are increased.[2] Guidance techniques may reduce complications by enabling visualization of neurovascular structures and identification of safe injection trajectories.

Evidence Gaps and Future Directions

Despite strong evidence favouring instrumented guidance over manual placement, no randomized controlled trials have directly compared combined guidance (US + EMG or US + e-stim) with single-modality ultrasound or electrostimulation alone.[9][11] Large-scale trials are needed to:

• Establish whether combined guidance approaches yield superior functional outcomes compared with single-modality techniques
• Identify specific patient subgroups that benefit most from combined guidance
• Determine optimal injection protocols for specific muscle groups
• Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different guidance strategies

Conclusion

Therapeutic BoNT-A injection is an effective, evidence-based treatment for focal spasticity in adults and children. Current evidence strongly supports instrumented guidance—particularly ultrasound and electrical stimulation—over manual needle placement to optimize clinical outcomes. Combined guidance approaches that leverage the complementary strengths of ultrasound (anatomical visualization) and EMG or e-stim (functional confirmation) offer theoretical advantages in complex cases, though direct comparative evidence is needed. Clinicians should individualize guidance technique selection based on target muscle characteristics, patient factors, and available expertise, and integrate BoNT-A treatment into comprehensive rehabilitation programs to maximize functional outcomes.

This comprehensive article synthesizes current evidence on therapeutic botulinum toxin injections for spasticity management, emphasizing the established hierarchy of guidance techniques and the rationale for combined approaches. The document notes that while Level 1 evidence supports instrumented guidance over manual placement, direct comparative trials of combined versus single-modality guidance remain a critical evidence gap that requires further investigation.[9][11][12]

The article is structured to serve as both a clinical reference and an educational resource, covering indications, efficacy data, guidance technique selection, patient population considerations, and practical implementation guidance based on current guidelines from the American Academy of Neurology, AAPM&R, and VA/DoD.[5][3][12]

References

1. Providing a Primary Care Medical Home for Children and Youth With Cerebral Palsy. Noritz G, Davidson L, Steingass K. Pediatrics. 2022:e2022060055. doi:10.1542/peds.2022-060055.
2. Towards Functional Improvement of Motor Disorders Associated With Cerebral Palsy. Bekteshi S, Monbaliu E, McIntyre S, et al. The Lancet. Neurology. 2023;22(3):229-243. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(23)00004-2.
3. AAPM&R Consensus Guidance on Spasticity Assessment and Management. Verduzco-Gutiérrez M, Raghavan P, Pruente J, et al. PM & R : The Journal of Injury, Function, and Rehabilitation. 2024;16(8):864-887. doi:10.1002/pmrj.13211.
4. FDA Orange Book. FDA Orange Book.
5. Management of Stroke Rehabilitation (2024). Natasha Antonovich PharmD BCPS, Jamie K. Basch DHSc OTR/L, Andrew Buelt DO, et al. Department of Veterans Affairs.
6. The Effectiveness of Botulinum Toxin on Spasticity and Gait of Hemiplegic Patients After Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Varvarousis DN, Martzivanou C, Dimopoulos D, et al. Toxicon : Official Journal of the International Society on Toxinology. 2021;203:74-84. doi:10.1016/j.toxicon.2021.09.020.
7. Effectiveness of Botulinum Toxin Treatment for Upper Limb Spasticity Poststroke Over Different ICF Domains: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Andringa A, van de Port I, van Wegen E, et al. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2019;100(9):1703-1725. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2019.01.016.
8. Early Botulinum Toxin Type a Injection May Improve Motor Recovery in Patients With Post-Stroke Spasticity: A Secondary Analysis From a Longitudinal Cohort Study. Picelli A, Santamato A, Cosma M, et al. Toxins. 2025;17(11):558. doi:10.3390/toxins17110558.
9. A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Guidance Techniques in Botulinum Toxin Injections and Their Hierarchy in the Treatment of Limb Spasticity. Asimakidou E, Sidiropoulos C. Toxins. 2023;15(4):256. doi:10.3390/toxins15040256.
10. The Elias University Hospital Approach: A Visual Guide to Ultrasound-Guided Botulinum Toxin Injection in Spasticity: Part I-Distal Upper Limb Muscles. Popescu MN, Căpeț C, Beiu C, Berteanu M. Toxins. 2025;17(3):107. doi:10.3390/toxins17030107.
11. Localization Modalities for Botulinum Neurotoxin Injection. Karp BI, Ly A, Alter KE. Toxicon : Official Journal of the International Society on Toxinology. 2025;264:108460. doi:10.1016/j.toxicon.2025.108460.
12. Impact of Injection-Guiding Techniques on the Effectiveness of Botulinum Toxin for the Treatment of Focal Spasticity and Dystonia: A Systematic Review. Grigoriu AI, Dinomais M, Rémy-Néris O, Brochard S. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2015;96(11):2067-78.e1. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2015.05.002.
13. Can Botulinum Toxin Type A Injection Technique Influence the Clinical Outcome of Patients With Post-Stroke Upper Limb Spasticity? A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Manual Needle Placement and Ultrasound-Guided Injection Techniques. Santamato A, Micello MF, Panza F, et al. Journal of the Neurological Sciences. 2014;347(1-2):39-43. doi:10.1016/j.jns.2014.09.016.
14. Effectiveness of Botulinum Toxin Injection With and Without Needle Electromyographic Guidance for the Treatment of Spasticity in Hemiplegic Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Ploumis A, Varvarousis D, Konitsiotis S, Beris A. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2014;36(4):313-8. doi:10.3109/09638288.2013.791727.
15. Ultrasound-Guided Botulinum Toxin Injections in Neurology: Technique, Indications and Future Perspectives. Walter U, Dressler D. Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics. 2014;14(8):923-36. doi:10.1586/14737175.2014.936387.
16. Ultrasound Guidance for Botulinum Neurotoxin Chemodenervation Procedures. Alter KE, Karp BI. Toxins. 2017;10(1):E18. doi:10.3390/toxins10010018.