Evaluation of outcome of different neurosurgical modalities in management of cervical dystonia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Cervical dystonia is the most common form of focal dystonia and is managed by multiple modalities including repeated botulinum toxin injections, in addition to medical treatment with anticholinergics, muscle relaxants, and physiotherapy. However, surgical interventions could be beneficial in otherwise refractory patients. This study aims to report our experience in the neurosurgical management of cervical dystonia and evaluate patient outcomes using reliable outcome scores for the assessment of patients with cervical dystonia and possible complications. This case series study was conducted on 19 patients with cervical dystonia of different etiologies who underwent surgical management [ten patients underwent selective peripheral denervation, five patients underwent pallidotomy, and four patients underwent bilateral globus pallidus internus (GPi) deep brain stimulation (DBS)] in the period between July 2018 and June 2021 at Ain Shams University Hospitals, Cairo, Egypt. With the assessment of surgical outcomes using the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS) and the Tsui scale 6 months postoperatively. Results Surgical management of patients with cervical dystonia of either primary or secondary etiology was associated with significant improvement in head and neck postures after 6 months without major complications associated with the different surgical procedures. The mean improvement in total TWSTRS and Tsui scores were 51.2% and 64.8%, respectively, compared with preoperative scores, while the mean improvement in the TWSTRS subscales (severity, disability, and pain) were 40.2%, 66.9%, and 58.3%, respectively. Conclusion Cervical dystonia patients in whom non-surgical options have failed to alleviate their symptoms can be managed surgically leading to significant improvements with minimal adverse effects. However, surgical treatment should be tailored according to several factors including but not limited to the etiology, pattern of dystonic activity, and comorbidities. Therefore, management should be tailored to achieve long-term improvement with minimal risk of complications.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".