| Literature DB >> 31502037 |
Qijia Zhan1, Xidan Yu2, Wenbin Jiang1, Min Shen2, Shuyun Jiang3, Rong Mei1, Junlu Wang1, Bo Xiao4.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Our aim was to test whether the newly modified rhizotomy protocol which could be effectively used to guide single-level approach selective dorsal rhizotomy (SL-SDR) to treat spastic hemiplegic cases by mainly releasing those spastic muscles (target muscles) marked pre-operatively in their lower limbs was still applicable in spastic quadriplegic or diplegic cerebral palsy (CP) cases in pediatric population.Entities:
Keywords: Dorsal rhizotomy; Intra-operative neuroelectrophysiology; Outcome; Rootlet selection; Spastic cerebral palsy
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31502037 PMCID: PMC7434794 DOI: 10.1007/s00381-019-04368-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Childs Nerv Syst ISSN: 0256-7040 Impact factor: 1.475
Fig. 1Scheme of our modified rhizotomy protocol
Fig. 2Example of EMG response interpretation. a, Single pulse stimulation elicited EMG responses in Lt. peroneus longus which was not the “target muscle”, the rootlet was left spared; b, EMG responses elicited in Rt. hip adductor which was the “target muscle”, but abnormal EMG responses were not seen on the Lt. side when train stimulation was given, the rootlet was cut 50%; c, EMG responses mainly seen in Lt. gastrocnemius medialis which was the “target muscle” when single pulse stimulation was given, but train stimulation did not elicit abnormal EMG responses on the Rt. side, the rootlet was cut 50%; d, Triggered EMG responses observed in Rt. gastrocnemius medialis which was the “target muscle”, train stimulation did evoke abnormal EMG responses on the Lt. side (mainly the lateral gastrocnemius), the rootlet was cut 75%
Fig. 3Framework of pre-op GMFCS level–based post-op rehabilitation program
General clinical data of 86 cases included in the study
| Characteristics | No. (%)a |
|---|---|
| Gender | |
| Boy | 62 (72.1) |
| Girl | 24 (27.9) |
| Age at surgery, year (mean, SD) | 3.5–12.0 (6.2 ± 2.0) |
| Etiology of spasticity | |
| Premature | 21 (24.4) |
| Asphyxia | 48 (55.8) |
| Unknown | 17 (19.8) |
| Spastic type | |
| Quadriplegia | 53 (61.6) |
| Diplegia | 33 (38.4) |
| Target muscles identified at pre-op, number (mean, SD)/case | 3–8 (6.8 ± 1.3) |
| Main Joints involved, number (mean, SD)/case | 2–6 (4.8 ± 1.3) |
| GMFCS level | |
| At pre-op (mean, SD) | 3.0 ± 1.0 |
| Level I | 5 (5.8) |
| Level II | 22 (25.6) |
| Level III | 35 (40.7) |
| Level IV | 19 (22.1) |
| Level V | 5 (5.8) |
| At the last follow-up (mean, SD) | 2.6 ± 1.2# |
| Level I | 17 (19.8) |
| Level II | 26 (30.2) |
| Level III | 22 (25.6) |
| Level IV | 16 (18.6) |
| Level V | 5 (5.8) |
| GMFM-66 | |
| At pre-op (mean, SD) | 53.0 ± 13.1 |
| At the last follow-up (mean, SD) | 59.1 ± 14.9* |
| Surgery-related complications | |
| CSF leak or infection | 0 (0.0) |
| Hypoesthesia | 0 (0.0) |
| Hypersensitivity (≤ 2 weeks) | 17 (19.8) |
| Urinary/bowel incontinence | 0 (0.0) |
| Follow-up, month (mean, SD) | 19.9 ± 6.0 |
| Additional orthopedic procedures required during follow-up | |
| Tendon lengthening | 2 (2.3) |
SD standard deviation, GMFCS gross motor function classification system, GMFM gross motor function measure, CSF cerebral spinal fluid
aUnless otherwise indicated
#Statistically significant difference obtained when compared with pre-op (p < 0.05)
*Statistically significant difference obtained when compared with pre-op (p < 0.01)
EMG interpretation and rhizotomy data in the study
| Characteristics | Value (mean, SD) |
|---|---|
| Rootlets stimulated (number)/case | 52–84 (66.5 ± 6.7) |
| Sphincter associated rootlets (number)/case | 17–31 (20.1 ± 3.2) |
| Motor rootlets associated with lower limbs (number)/case | 12–18 (14.6 ± 1.3) |
| EMG threshold (mA) | 0.01–0.11 (0.06 ± 0.03) |
| EMG latency to the Stimulus (ms) | 3.00–9.10 (6.01 ± 1.85) |
| Sensory rootlet associated with lower limbs (number)/case | 19–47 (31.9 ± 5.7) |
| EMG threshold (mA) | 0.15–2.00 (0.54 ± 0.31) |
| EMG latency to the Stimulus (ms) | 6.1–17.1 (12.55 ± 2.71) |
| Rootlets matched our rhizotomy criteria (number)/case | 3–21 (11.0 ± 4.2) |
| Rootlet cut 50% | 3–20 (10.1 ± 3.6) |
| Rootlet cut 75% | 0–3 (0.9 ± 1.0) |
EMG electromyography, SD standard deviation, mA milliampere, ms millisecond
Changes of muscle tone, muscle strength of the target muscles, and ROM of the joints involved (passive) pre- and post-op
| Measures | At pre-op | 3 weeks post-op | At the last follow-up |
|---|---|---|---|
| Value (mean, SD) | Value (mean, SD) | Value (mean, SD) | |
| Muscle tone (grade) | |||
| Gastrocnemius | 3.0 ± 0.7 | 2.0 ± 0.5* | 1.6 ± 0.4* |
| Soleus | 2.6 ± 0.7 | 1.4 ± 0.4* | 0.9 ± 0.6* |
| Hamstring | 2.3 ± 0.5 | 1.7 ± 0.4* | 1.5 ± 0.4* |
| Hip adductor | 2.5 ± 0.5 | 1.4 ± 0.3* | 1.4 ± 0.3* |
| Muscle Strength (grade)a | |||
| Gastrocnemius | 3.5 ± 0.7 | 3.4 ± 0.7 | 4.2 ± 0.9* |
| Soleus | 3.4 ± 0.8 | 3.4 ± 0.8 | 4.0 ± 1.0* |
| Hamstring | 3.1 ± 0.9 | 3.1 ± 0.9 | 3.5 ± 1.1* |
| Hip adductor | 3.2 ± 0.8 | 3.2 ± 0.8 | 3.5 ± 1.0* |
| ROM of joints involved (degree) | |||
| Ankleb | 1.0 ± 3.9 | 12.6 ± 3.0* | 15.9 ± 4.3* |
| Knee | 128.5 ± 6.9 | 133.6 ± 5.4* | 136.1 ± 4.3* |
| Hipc | 30.2 ± 3.3 | 41.0 ± 2.6* | 41.4 ± 2.9* |
ROM range of motion, SD standard deviation
aNot applicable in 5 cases with their pre-op GMFCS level V
bDorsal flexion
cAbduction with hip flexed
*Statistically significant difference obtained when compared with pre-op (p < 0.01)
Fig. 4Association between outcomes and pre-op status in our cases. a Better results were observed in cases with pro-op GMFCS levels II and III; b Cases younger than 6 years had more chance to upgrade (81 cases with their pre-op GMFCS levels II–V); c Score increased more in cases with pre-op GMFM-66 ≥ 50 than those with score below; d Cases younger than 6 years improved more with regard to score increase of GMFM-66 after SDR. Number sign indicates statistically significant difference obtained with p < 0.05. Asterisk indicates statistically significant difference obtained with p < 0.01
Fig. 5EMG responses obtained in one of our cases with pre-op GMFCS level IV, muscle tone of grade 2 in his Lt. rectus femoris. EMG responses were observed mainly in Lt. hip adductor (one of the target muscles in this case), which met our rhizotomy criteria. The rootlet was cut based on our protocol. In the meanwhile, the EMG responses were seen in Lt. rectus femoris as well. Its muscle tone decreased to grade 1.5 right after the surgery