Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 1987:39:126-8.

Cerebellar stimulation for cerebral palsy--double blind study

Affiliations
  • PMID: 3314372
Clinical Trial

Cerebellar stimulation for cerebral palsy--double blind study

R Davis et al. Acta Neurochir Suppl (Wien). 1987.

Abstract

Twenty spastic cerebral palsy (CP) patients undergoing chronic cerebellar stimulation (CCS) for reduction of spasticity and improvement in function have participated in a double-blind study. Seven US centers involving 9 neurosurgeons (1984-6) have replaced the depleted Neurolith 601 fully implantable pulse generator (Pacesetter Systems Incorp.-Neurodyne Corp., Sylmar, CA) with new units in 19 CP patients, 1 patient entered the study following his initial implant. A magnetically controllable switch was placed in line between the Neurolith stimulator and the cerebellar lead, so allowing switching sequences for the study. Physical therapists, living in the vicinity of the patient's home, carried out two quantitative evaluations: 1. Joint angle motion measurements (passive and active). 2. Motor performance testing was done when possible and included: reaction time, hand dynamonetry, grooved peg board placement, hand/foot tapping, and rotary pursuit testing. Testing was done presurgery, at 2 weeks postimplant, then the switch was activated either "on" or "off" to a schedule, with testing and reswitching at 1, 2 and 4 months, then the switch was left turned "on". Of the 20 patients, 16 finished the tests, 2 patients failed to finish and 2 had switch problems and were deleted from the study. Two of the 16 patients were "off" through the entire testing. Of the 14 that had periods of the stimulator being "on", 10 patients (72%) had quantitative improvements of over 20%, (1 pt: 50+% improvements; 4 pts: 30-50%, 5 pts: 20-30%); while 1 patient (7%) had improvements in the 10-20% level, whereas 3 patients (21%) showed no improvement.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types