SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Safety and efficacy of unilateral and bilateral pallidotomy for primary dystonia.

Ann Clin Transl Neurol · 2021-03-15

DOI: 10.1002/acn3.51333PMID: 33720521

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

ObjectiveAblation of the globus pallidus internus (pallidotomy) is an effective surgical intervention for dystonia. However, the current literature on the efficacy and safety of pallidotomy for dystonia is derived only from single-case reports and small cohort studies.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed patients with primary dystonia who underwent pallidotomy at our institution between 2014 and 2019. Neurological conditions were evaluated using the Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale (BFMDRS, range: 0-120). We evaluated the total BFMDRS score and each subitem score (nine body regions) in the patients who underwent unilateral and bilateral pallidotomy before surgery and at last available follow-up. Moreover, postoperative complications were analyzed.ResultsWe found that 69 and 20 patients underwent unilateral and bilateral pallidotomy respectively. The mean age at dystonia onset was 40.4 ± 15.2 years. The mean clinical follow-up period was 17.2 ± 11.6 months. Unilateral pallidotomy significantly improved the total BFMDRS score from 11.2 ± 14.7 preoperatively to 5.4 ± 7.6 at last available follow-up (51.8% improvement, p InterpretationUnilateral radiofrequency pallidotomy remains a viable treatment option for patients with some forms of dystonia. Bilateral pallidotomy cannot be recommended due to unacceptably high complication rates.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.