Pallidal Deep Brain Stimulation in Patients with Prior Bilateral Pallidotomy and Selective Peripheral Denervation for Treatment of Dystonia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the globus pallidus internus has become an accepted treatment for severe isolated idiopathic and inherited dystonia. Patients who had other forms of surgery earlier, such as radiofrequency lesioning or selective peripheral denervation, however, usually are not considered candidates for DBS. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcome of pallidal DBS in a rare subgroup of patients who had undergone both pallidotomy and selective peripheral denervation previously with a waning effect over the years. METHODS: Pallidal DBS was performed according to a prospective study protocol in 2 patients with isolated idiopathic dystonia, and patients were followed for a period of at least 6 years. RESULTS: Both patients benefitted from long-lasting amelioration of dystonia after pallidal DBS, which was comparable to that of patients who did not have previous surgeries. In a 62-year-old female with cervical dystonia both the Burke-Fahn-Marsden (BFM) and the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS) motor scores were improved at follow-up 8 years after surgery (50 and 39%). In a 32-year-old male with generalized dystonia, the BFM motor and disability scores showed marked improvement at 6.5 years of follow-up (82 and 66%). CONCLUSIONS: Pallidal DBS can yield marked and long-lasting improvement in patients who underwent both pallidotomy and selective peripheral denervation earlier. Therefore, such patients, in general, should not be excluded from DBS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".