MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1976710672 · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8749.2011.03991.x

10-year follow-up after selective dorsal rhizotomy in cerebral palsy

2011· letter· en· W1976710672 sur OpenAlexaff
Paul Steinbok

Notice bibliographique

RevueDevelopmental Medicine & Child Neurology · 2011
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRhizotomySpasticityCerebral palsyModified Ashworth scaleMuscle toneMuscle contractureMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationGaitPopulationPhysical therapyContractureJoint ContractureOrthopedic surgeryDorsumSurgeryAnatomy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Tedroff et al.1 have reviewed the 10-year outcomes in a population of children undergoing selective dorsal rhizotomy (SDR). In four patients there was not adequate follow-up, and therefore most of the study findings are based on 15 patients followed closely for 10 years after SDR. In these patients they have assessed a number of outcome measures, in particular the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS), Gross Motor Function Measure 88 (GMFM-88), and the Wilson gait scale at baseline, 18 months, 3 and 10 years. The results indicate that spasticity, as measured by the MAS, remains reduced at 10 years after SDR. However, the mean GMFM-88 score improved up to 3 years and then decreased, although not back to baseline. Almost all patients had orthopedic surgery, mainly soft-tissue releases and always after 1 year from SDR. Although the Wilson gait scale worsened on average between 3 and 10 years, mobility was better at 10 years than at baseline in 12 of the 19 patients. The authors note that despite the persistent reduction in muscle tone, contractures developed and required soft-tissue surgeries. This indicates that development of contractures in cerebral palsy is not only mediated by spasticity and is an interesting finding. The authors further conclude that the ‘spasticity-reducing effect of SDR, although pronounced, did not seem to improve long term-functioning …’ and some may interpret this incorrectly to indicate that there was no value to the SDR. I think that failure to improve with respect to long-term functioning has not been shown definitively. Mobility changed from a mean of 7 to a mean of 6 on the Wilson gait scale, and on that scale a score of 6 or less indicates walking ability. Furthermore, the authors note that 12 of the 19 children showed improvement on the Wilson gait scale at 10 years. One could argue that the improvement in gait in these 12 children and the improvement of the mean Wilson gait score represents an improvement in mobility function. This may have resulted from the SDR or the combination of SDR plus orthopedic surgeries and one cannot exclude a positive effect of the SDR. It is true that the mean GMFM-88 declined from 3 years post-operatively to 10 years after SDR, but it did not return to baseline. It would have been helpful for the authors to have provided similar information on the number of patients, who exhibited a significant improvement in GMFM at 10 years. There certainly were such patients, since the 75th centile for GMFM-88 at baseline was 72 and at 10 years was 91. As for the Wilson gait scores, I expect that there were some patients who benefited after SDR plus/minus orthopedic procedures at 10 years compared to baseline. There are a number of confounders that impact the mobility of the children as they get older, such as body mass index and even the social acceptability of being in a wheelchair. Many adolescents, even if they can walk with difficulty may choose to use a wheelchair, if it is socially acceptable, because they can get around more easily and quickly. They may find that that type of locomotion actually improves their quality of life. As the authors have stated, further studies are required to address some of these issues in the population with spastic cerebral palsy, regardless of how they have been treated.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,009
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,019

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,013
Tête enseignante GPT0,229
Écart entre enseignants0,216 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueDevelopmental Medicine & Child NeurologyMême sujetCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersTravaux en français237 207