SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Unilateral pallidothalamic tractotomy at Forel's field H1 for cervical dystonia.

Ann Clin Transl Neurol · 2022-03-08

DOI: 10.1002/acn3.51532PMID: 35261204

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

BackgroundNeurosurgical ablation of Forel's field H1 for cervical dystonia, which is currently abandoned, was formerly used in the 1960s-1970s. Regardless of the lack of neuroimaging modalities and objective evaluation scales, the reported efficacy was significant. Although recent studies have reappraised the ablation of the pallidothalamic tract at Forel's field H1 for Parkinson's disease, the efficacy for cervical dystonia has not been investigated well.MethodsData of 35 patients with cervical dystonia who underwent unilateral pallidothalamic tractotomy at Forel's field H1 were retrospectively analyzed. The Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS) scores, the neck score of the Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale (BFMDRS), and adverse events were evaluated preoperatively and at the last available follow-up period.ResultsThe mean clinical follow-up period was 13.9 ± 6.5 months. The mean TWSTRS total scores were 34.3 ± 14.0 preoperatively and 18.4 ± 16.5 at the last available follow-up period (46.4% improvement, p ConclusionThe current study confirmed significant improvement in TWSTRS total scores and BFMDRS neck scores at the 13.9-month follow-up after unilateral pallidothalamic tractotomy. The pallidothalamic tract in Forel's field H1 is expected to be an alternative treatment target for cervical dystonia.

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.