Cerebellar mutism syndrome of non-tumour surgical aetiology-a case report and literature review.

Cerebellar mutism syndrome (CMS) is a well-known complication of posterior fossa (PF) tumour surgery. CMS has previously been reported in cases of non-tumour surgical aetiology in a limited number of publications. We report a case of a 10-year-old girl who suffered a cerebellar haemorrhage and subsequent CMS following surgical treatment of a ruptured arteriovenous malformation (AVM) in the cerebellar vermis. The AVM was removed acutely through a transvermian access, and hydrocephalus was treated with temporary external drainage. In the postoperative period, she suffered diffuse vasospasms of the anterior cerebral circulation and had a permanent shunt placed for hydrocephalus. Her mutism resolved after 45 days but severe ataxia persisted. To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of CMS related to a vermian haemorrhagic stroke with postoperative diffuse vasospasms. Based on this case, we present a literature review on CMS of non-tumour surgical origin in children.

Left-handedness should not be overrated as a risk factor for postoperative speech impairment in children after posterior fossa tumour surgery: a prospective European multicentre study.

PURPOSE: Cerebellar mutism syndrome (CMS) is a severe neurological complication of posterior fossa tumour surgery in children, and postoperative speech impairment (POSI) is the main component. Left-handedness was previously suggested as a strong risk factor for POSI. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between handedness and the risk of POSI. METHODS: We prospectively included children (aged < 18 years) undergoing surgery for posterior fossa tumours in 26 European centres. Handedness was assessed pre-operatively and postoperative speech status was categorised as either POSI (mutism or reduced speech) or habitual speech, based on the postoperative clinical assessment. Logistic regression was used in the risk factor analysis of POSI as a dichotomous outcome. RESULTS: Of the 500 children included, 37 (7%) were excluded from the present analysis due to enrolment at a reoperation; another 213 (43%) due to missing data about surgery (n = 37) and/or handedness (n = 146) and/or postoperative speech status (n = 53). Out of the remaining 250 (50%) patients, 20 (8%) were left-handed and 230 (92%) were right-handed. POSI was observed equally frequently regardless of handedness (5/20 [25%] in left-handed, 61/230 [27%] in right-handed, OR: 1.08 [95% CI: 0.40-3.44], p = 0.882), also when adjusted for tumour histology, location and age. CONCLUSION: We found no difference in the risk of POSI associated with handedness. Our data do not support the hypothesis that handedness should be of clinical relevance in the risk assessment of CMS.

Do Modic changes have an impact on clinical outcome in lumbar spine surgery? A systematic literature review.

PURPOSE: To provide a systematic literature review of the impact of preoperative Modic changes (MCs) on the clinical outcome following lumbar spine surgery for degenerative lumbar spine disease. METHODS: A PubMed search until 31 October 2015 was performed to identify publications correlating preoperative MC with clinical outcome in patients undergoing spine surgery. RESULTS: Inclusion criteria were met by 14 articles (7 prospective and 7 retrospective studies) representing a total of 1652 surgical patients, of which at least 804 (>49 %) showed MC. Of the 14 publications, 6 concerned discectomy (n = 607), 1 fusion versus discectomy (n = 91), 3 fusion surgery (n = 454), and 4 total disc replacement (TDR, n = 500). A trend toward less improvement in low back pain or Oswestry Disability Index score was found in the discectomy studies, and a trend toward increased improvement was demonstrated in the TDR studies when MC was present preoperatively. The fusion studies were of low evidence, and showed conflicting results. CONCLUSION: Preoperative MC showed a trend toward a negative correlation with clinical improvement in patients undergoing discectomy for LDH and a positive correlation with clinical improvement in patients undergoing TDR for degenerative disc disease. However, it is questionable whether the differences surpass the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). In patients undergoing fusion surgery, there was insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions. Future studies should include a larger patient material, focus on MCID, and include known confounding factors of the clinical outcome of spine surgery in the analysis.