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

Background Neurosurgical 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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Annals of clinical and translational neurology 2022-04, Vol.9 (4), p.478-487
Main Authors: Horisawa, Shiro, Kohara, Kotaro, Nonaka, Taku, Fukui, Atsushi, Mochizuki, Tatsuki, Iijima, Mutsumi, Kawamata, Takakazu, Taira, Takaomi
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Ablation
Demographics
Dystonia
Dystonic Disorders
Humans
Local anesthesia
Neck
Parkinson's disease
Patients
Retrospective Studies
Software
Stereotaxic Techniques
Subthalamus - surgery
Surgery
Torticollis - surgery
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background Neurosurgical 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. Methods Data 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. Results The 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 
ISSN:2328-9503
2328-9503
DOI:10.1002/acn3.51532