ArticleFrontiers in neurology
The role of pallidotomy in the precision medicine era.
Article in Frontiers in neurology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The use of radiofrequency pallidotomy (RP) for medically refractory dystonia has markedly declined since the introduction of deep brain stimulation (DBS). Conditions such as severe cognitive impairment, poor nutritional status, or acquired dystonia-common in children with severe dystonia-may limit DBS eligibility or benefit. In these cases, RP may represent a valuable alternative. Evidence on RP in this population remains scarce, mostly based on small case-series with limited follow-up. We retrospectively analyzed RP safety, feasibility and long-term outcomes in children with medically refractory dystonia. Methods: Records of patients who underwent RP at Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital were reviewed. Outcomes were retrospectively assessed through the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale. For patients with a history of status dystonicus (SD), recurrence was used as outcome measure. Results: Eighteen patients underwent 21 procedures. Sixteen received bilateral simultaneous pallidotomy; two unilateral pallidotomy after GPi-DBS removal due to infection. Three patients required repeated surgery for recurrent-SD. Ten had acquired dystonia (cerebral palsy, CP), five genetically confirmed dystonia, three idiopathic dystonia. Three were followed for three months or less; in the others, mean follow-up was 6.62 ± 3.65 years. Three months postoperatively, 12 of 16 patients improved (1 "very much improved," 2 "much improved," 9 "minimally improved"), 2 were unchanged and 2 minimally worsened. At last follow-up (15 patients), 1 remained "very much improved," 2 "minimally improved," 3 "unchanged," 6"minimally worsened," 3 "much worsened." Among six patients treated for ongoing-SD, crises abated over 50.7 ± 27.8 days. SD recurred in 8 patients (5 CP, 1 genetic, 2 idiopathic) after a mean of 20.3 ± 19.8 months. Conclusion: RP emerges as a feasible rescue-therapy for severe medically refractory SD. Most patients show meaningful short-term improvement, but beneficial effects tend to decline over time, with high rate of SD recurrence-particularly in dyskinetic-CP. This may reflect suboptimal lesions' location and/or size, progressive disease course or re-emergence of dystonia through different networks. In this light, RP should be considered when DBS is contraindicated, the risk of hardware-related complications outweighs the advantages of an adjustable system, or in patients with limited life expectancy, where an irreversible yet effective rescue intervention is clinically justified.
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.