4.1 Article

Long-term outcome after selective dorsal rhizotomy in children with spastic cerebral palsy

Journal

CHILDS NERVOUS SYSTEM
Volume 31, Issue 3, Pages 415-423

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00381-015-2614-9

Keywords

Selective dorsal rhizotomy; Pediatric; Spastic cerebral palsy; Long-term outcomes; SDR; CP

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of this study is to evaluate long-term outcomes after selective dorsal rhizotomy (SDR) for children with spastic cerebral palsy. This is a retrospective review of a prospective database of patients who underwent SDR at British Columbia Children's Hospital. Hip adductor spasticity, hip range of motion (ROM), quadriceps strength, and motor function were assessed pre-operatively, at 6 months to 5 years and more than 10 years postoperatively. Patients were stratified by Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) level into group 1 (GMFCS II and III) and group 2 (GMFCS IV and V). Forty-four patients, with mean age at SDR of 4.5 years (range 2.9-7.7), were followed for a mean 14.4 years. Spasticity (Modified Ashworth Scale) decreased 1.5 (p < 0.0001) by early postoperative evaluation with further decrease at late evaluation of 0.8 (p < 0.0001). Early improvement in hip ROM of 13.7 degrees (p < 0.0001) was not sustained at late assessment. Motor function improved in both groups at early assessment but was only sustained in group 1. Group 1 increased 10.0 points (p < 0.0001) at early evaluation with subsequent decrease of 3.5, resulting in an overall increase of 6.6 (p = 0.04) from baseline. Group 2 patients had an initial increase of 8.3 [2.0, 14.6] (p = 0.01) but then declined to 4.9 below baseline (p = 0.3). SDR yields durable reduction in spasticity after 10 years. Early improvements in motor function are present, but at long-term follow-up, these improvements were attenuated in GMFCS II and III and were not sustained in GMFCS IV and V.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available