Selective dorsal rhizotomy in non-ambulant children with cerebral palsy: a multi-center prospective study.

PURPOSE: Assess the effects of selective dorsal rhizotomy (SDR) on motor function and quality of life in children with a Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) level of IV or V (non-ambulatory). METHODS: This is a prospective, observational study in three tertiary neurosurgery units in England, UK, performing SDR on children aged 3-18 with spastic diplegic cerebral palsy, and a GMFCS level of IV or V, between 2012 and 2019. The primary outcome measure was the change in the 66-item Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM-66) from baseline to 24 months after SDR, using a linear mixed effects model. Secondary outcomes included spasticity, bladder function, quality of life, and pain scores. RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2019, 144 children who satisfied these inclusion criteria underwent SDR. The mean age was 8.2 years. Fifty-two percent were female. Mean GMFM-66 score was available in 77 patients (53.5%) and in 39 patients (27.1%) at 24 months after SDR. The mean increase between baseline and 24 months post-SDR was 2.4 units (95% CI 1.7-3.1, p < 0.001, annual change 1.2 units). Of the 67 patients with a GMFM-66 measurement available, a documented increase in gross motor function was seen in 77.6% (n = 52). Of 101 patients with spasticity data available, mean Ashworth scale decreased after surgery (2.74 to 0.30). Of patients' pain scores, 60.7% (n = 34) improved, and 96.4% (n = 56) of patients' pain scores remained the same or improved. Bladder function improved in 30.9% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: SDR improved gross motor function and reduced pain in most patients at 24 months after surgery, although the improvement is less pronounced than in children with GMFCS levels II and III. SDR should be considered in non-ambulant patients.

Quality of life outcomes in incidental and operated meningiomas (QUALMS): a cross-sectional cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Few studies have evaluated meningioma patients' longer-term health-related quality of life (HRQoL) following diagnosis and treatment, particularly in those with incidental, actively monitored tumours. METHODS: A single-center, cross-sectional study was completed. Adult patients with surgically managed or actively monitored meningioma with more than five years of follow-up were included. The patient-reported outcome measures RAND SF-36, EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BN20 were used to evaluate HRQoL. HRQoL scores were compared to normative population data. Outcome determinants were evaluated using multivariate linear regression analysis. RESULTS: 243 patient responses were analyzed, and the mean time from diagnosis was 9.8 years (range 5.0-40.3 years). Clinically relevant, statistically significant HRQoL impairments were identified across several SF-36 and QLQ-C30 domains. Increasing education level (ß = 2.9, 95% CI 0.9 to 4.9), P = .004), employment (ß = 7.7, 95% CI 2.2 to 13.1, P = .006) and absence of postoperative complications (ß=-6.7, 95% CI -13.2 to (-)0.3, P = .041) were associated with a better QLQ-C30 summary score. Other tumour and treatment variables were not. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the longer-term disease burden of patients with meningioma nearly one decade after diagnosis or surgery. Patients with actively monitored meningioma have similar HRQoL to operated meningioma patients. Healthcare professionals should be mindful of HRQoL impairments and direct patients to sources of support as needed.

Health-related quality of life following cranioplasty - a systematic review.

Cranioplasty is a neurosurgical procedure that repairs a defect in the skull Coupled with the underlying pathology cranioplasty associated morbidity can have a large impact on patient quality of life, which is often poorly explored. The objective of this systematic review was to identify patient-reported outcomes evaluating health-related quality of life following cranioplasty. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021251543) and a systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Plus, and the Cochrane databases were searched from inception to 1 May 2022. All studies reporting HRQoL following cranioplasty were included. Reporting was assessed using the ISOQOL checklist and risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or the Johanna-Briggs Institute Scale, as appropriate. A total of 25 studies were included of which 20 were cross-sectional and 2 longitudinal. Most studies utilized study specific questionnaires and Likert scales to assess HRQoL. The studies found a significant improvement in physical functioning, social functioning, cosmetic outcome, and overall HRQoL following cranioplasty. Further longitudinal studies utilising validated measurement tools are required to better understand the effect of cranioplasty at a patient level.

How should we treat long-standing overt ventriculomegaly in adults (LOVA)? A retrospective cohort study.

Long-standing overt ventriculomegaly in adults (LOVA) is a heterogenous group of conditions with differing presentations. Few studies have evaluated success rates of available surgical treatments, or ascertained the natural history. There is a need to assess the efficacy of both endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) and ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS) as first-line treatments. We conducted a retrospective, single-centre study of adults with LOVA at a tertiary neurosurgery centre in England, UK, aiming to identify presentation, management strategy, and outcome following treatment. A total of 127 patients were included (mean age 48.1 years, 61/127 male). Most patients were symptomatic (73.2%, n = 93/127, median symptom duration 10 months). The most common symptoms were gait ataxia, headache, and cognitive decline (52.8%, 50.4%, and 33.9%, respectively). Fourteen patients had papilloedema. Ninety-one patients (71.7%) underwent surgery (84 ETV, 7 VPS). Over a median follow-up of 33.0 months (interquartile range [IQR] 19.0-65.7), 82.4% had a clinical improvement after surgery, and 81.3% had radiological improvement. Clinical improvement rates were similar between ETV and VP shunt groups (82.1% vs 85.7%, p = 0.812). Surgical complication rates were significantly lower in the ETV group than the VP shunt group (4.8% vs 42.9%, p < 0.001). Of the patients treated surgically, 20 (22.0%) underwent further surgery, with 14 patients improving. This study demonstrates the efficacy of ETV as a first-line treatment for LOVA.

Meningioma systematic reviews and meta-analyses: an assessment of reporting and methodological quality.

INTRODUCTION: Systematic reviews (SR) and systematic reviews with meta-analysis (SRMA) can constitute the highest level of research evidence. Such evidence syntheses are relied upon heavily to inform the clinical knowledge base and to guide clinical practice for meningioma. This review evaluates the reporting and methodological quality of published meningioma evidence syntheses to date. METHODS: Eight electronic databases/registries were searched to identify eligible meningioma SRs with and without meta-analysis published between January 1990 and December 2020. Articles concerning spinal meningioma were excluded. Reporting and methodological quality were assessed against the following tools: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2), and Risk Of Bias in Systematic reviews (ROBIS). RESULTS: 116 SRs were identified, of which 57 were SRMAs (49.1%). The mean PRISMA score for SRMA was 20.9 out of 27 (SD 3.9, 77.0% PRISMA adherence) and for SR without meta-analysis was 13.8 out of 22 (SD 3.4, 63% PRISMA adherence). Thirty-eight studies (32.8%) achieved greater than 80% adherence to PRISMA. Methodological quality assessment against AMSTAR 2 revealed that 110 (94.8%) studies were of critically low quality. Only 21 studies (18.1%) were judged to have a low risk of bias against ROBIS. CONCLUSION: The reporting and methodological quality of meningioma evidence syntheses was poor. Established guidelines and critical appraisal tools may be used as an adjunct to aid methodological conduct and reporting of such reviews, in order to improve the validity and transparency of research which may influence clinical practice.