The Downside of Botulinum Injections for Anterocollis: A Case Series and a Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This is a case series and a review of the literature of therapeutic outcomes of botulinum toxin (BT) injections for anterocollis. METHODS: Data collected included gender, age, age at onset, muscles targeted, and doses injected. Routine forms were filled out during each visit: Patient Global Impression of Change, Clinician Global Impression of Severity, Tsui scale. The effect duration and side effects (SEs) of the previous treatment were noted. RESULTS: We described 4 patients (3 men, 13 visits) with anterocollis, as primary postural abnormality of the neck, emphasizing the therapeutic response to BT injection. Mean age at onset was 75.3 ± 7.0 years, age at first injection was 80.7 ± 3.5 years. The mean total dose per treatment was 290.0 ± 95.6 units. Patient Global Impression of Change with any grade of favorable effect was reported in 27.3% of the treatments. In objective assessment, Global Impression of Severity and Tsui scores did not show a consistent tendency of improvement. Neck weakness was prevalent in 18.2% of the visits of the anterocollis group while no other SEs were noted. We found 15 articles describing experience with BT for anterocollis in 67 patients (19 in deep and 48 in superficial neck muscles). CONCLUSIONS: This case series describes the poor outcome of BT treatment for anterocollis, with low efficacy and bothersome SE. Levator scapulae injection for anterocollis is not effective and is highly associated with head drop and should perhaps be abandoned. Injection to the longus colli might give some benefit in non-responders.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".