Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry logoLink to Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry
. 2002 Dec;73(6):705–709. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.73.6.705

Managing severe lower limb spasticity in multiple sclerosis: does intrathecal phenol have a role?

L Jarrett 1, P Nandi 1, A Thompson 1
PMCID: PMC1757337  PMID: 12438474

Abstract

Objective: Established treatment options for managing severe lower limb spasticity and associated pain are of limited value in people with advanced multiple sclerosis (MS). This has resulted in a resurgence of the use of lumbar intrathecal phenol injection (IP). The aim of this study was to investigate the authors' experience with IP.

Methods: This observational study collected cross sectional data from patients with progressive MS who received IP for severe lower limb spasticity. Data from 25 patients were collected prospectively before and after treatment. In 15 cases the data related to the first treatment and in 10 to serial injections. Outcome measures collected included the Ashworth scale, a spasm frequency scale, a pain rating score, and the percentage achievement of practical goals.

Results: After injection, all patients demonstrated reduced lower limb tone bilaterally. After the initial injection there was significant improvement on the targeted as compared with the non-targeted side (Wilcoxon rank p=0.003), while no difference in the degree of improvement between the targeted and non-targeted side was seen after serial injections (Wilcoxon rank p=0.731). Twenty four patients were easier to position and 21 had a reduction in their spasm frequency and intensity. Eleven patients with pain reported benefit. Carers found washing and dressing easier in 16 patients and improved safety when using the hoist in 10. Six patients had recurrence of skin breakdown and five patients reported transient adverse changes in their bowel function.

Conclusions: IP can reduce lower limb tone bilaterally after both initial and serial injections. This is most noticeable on the targeted side after initial injection. IP can reduce spasms and pain, leading to improvements in care and overall comfort. IP is an effective treatment option in the management of severe spasticity. Documented selection criteria are essential.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (199.0 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. ASHWORTH B. PRELIMINARY TRIAL OF CARISOPRODOL IN MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS. Practitioner. 1964 Apr;192:540–542. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Akman M. N., Loubser P. G., Donovan W. H., O'Neill M. E., Rossi C. D. Intrathecal baclofen: does tolerance occur? Paraplegia. 1993 Aug;31(8):516–520. doi: 10.1038/sc.1993.84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Becker W. J., Harris C. J., Long M. L., Ablett D. P., Klein G. M., DeForge D. A. Long-term intrathecal baclofen therapy in patients with intractable spasticity. Can J Neurol Sci. 1995 Aug;22(3):208–217. doi: 10.1017/s031716710003986x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Hansebout R. R., Cosgrove J. B. Effects of intrathecal phenol in man. A histological study. Neurology. 1966 Mar;16(3):277–282. doi: 10.1212/wnl.16.3.277. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. KELLY R. E., GAUTIER-SMITH P. C. Intrathecal phenol in the treatment of reflex spasms and spasti city. Lancet. 1959 Dec 19;2(7112):1102–1105. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(59)90095-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Kurtzke J. F. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology. 1983 Nov;33(11):1444–1452. doi: 10.1212/wnl.33.11.1444. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. LOURIE H., VANASUPA P. COMMENTS ON THE USE OF INTRASPINAL PHENOL-PANTOPAQUE FOR RELIEF OF PAIN AND SPASTICITY. J Neurosurg. 1963 Jan;20:60–63. doi: 10.3171/jns.1963.20.1.0060. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. MAHER R. M. Relief of pain in incurable cancer. Lancet. 1955 Jan 1;268(6853):18–20. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(55)93213-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. MAHONEY F. I., BARTHEL D. W. FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION: THE BARTHEL INDEX. Md State Med J. 1965 Feb;14:61–65. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. NATHAN P. W. Intrathecal phenol to relieve spasticity in paraplegia. Lancet. 1959 Dec 19;2(7112):1099–1102. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(59)90094-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. NATHAN P. W., SCOTT T. G. Intrathecal phenol for intractable pain: safety and dangers of the method. Lancet. 1958 Jan 11;1(7011):76–80. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(58)92570-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Nathan P. W. Treatment of spasticity with perineural injections of phenol. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1969 Jun;11(3):384–384. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.1969.tb01453.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Penn R. D., Savoy S. M., Corcos D., Latash M., Gottlieb G., Parke B., Kroin J. S. Intrathecal baclofen for severe spinal spasticity. N Engl J Med. 1989 Jun 8;320(23):1517–1521. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198906083202303. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Robinson B. C. Validation of a Caregiver Strain Index. J Gerontol. 1983 May;38(3):344–348. doi: 10.1093/geronj/38.3.344. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Wood K. M. The use of phenol as a neurolytic agent: a review. Pain. 1978 Oct;5(3):205–229. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(78)90009-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES