2016 yearbook of neurorestoratology

Objective:To evaluate the functional outcome of foot and ankle deformity secondary to spinal bifida treated by various methods.Methods:A retrospective analysis of 248 patients with foot and ankle deformity secondary to spina bifida with an average age of 25.5 years and underwent surgical treatment in our hospital from March 2012 to April 2016. The deformity correction was achieved by various methods like soft tissue procedure, bony procedure combined with external fixator application. All the patients were followed up at regular interval. Post operative rehabilitation and protective splints were provided after fixator removal. The final outcome was evaluated with American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score and Qin’s criteria for deformity correction, matched T-test was used to compare the data pre and post surgery.Results:According to the short term follow up, all these patients were achieved complete correction and able to achieve full weight bearing. Out of 248 patients, 13 patients were lost follow up. 235 patients were followed up for an average of 28.5 months. We noted various minor complications like superficial pin tract infection was seen in 5, pin breakage in 4, pin tract burn injury in 1, and recurrence of deformity was noted in 20 patients especially in children, anterior dislocation of the tibiotalar joint in 3 patients with severe clubfoot deformity. At the final follow up, the mean AOFAS score increased to 88.7, with a significant improvement compared with the score before surgery (P < 0.05). Based on Qin’s criteria for deformity correction, the outcome was graded as excellent in 180 patients, good in 55, and fair in none of the cases.Conclusion:Through orthopaedic treatment, combination of soft tissue and bony procedures along with external fixator helps to achieve complete correction of deformity, healing of ulcer, restoration of functional activity for spinal bifida sequelae patients.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The treatment of neurotrophic foot and ankle deformity of spinal bifida: 248 cases in single center

Zang

Qin

Vigneshwaran³

et al. 2019

“…Currently clinical neurorestorative therapies are able to help patients with central nervous system (CNS) diseases or damage for improving their neurological function and quality of life following complete chronic spinal cord injury (SCI), stroke, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and many other diseases [1,2]. Although, these advancements were made in due course of time [3,4]; incorrect viewpoints about clinical neurorestorative treatment strategies are still noticed in this area, with special reference to SCI. This appears to be a common misunderstanding that "there are no any methods for restoring damaged neurological structure or functions so far, or even partial restoration" [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of clinical neurorestorative strategies for spinal cord injury: Exploring history and latest progresses

Huang

Sharma

Chen

et al. 2018

Self Cite

KEYWORDS neurorestorative strategies; spinal cord injury; cell therapy; neuromodulation; nerve bridges.Clinical neurorestorative therapies recently made great progress for patients with spinal cord injury (SCI). This paper systemically reviews historical perspectives, recent advancements and achievements in SCI through key neurorestorative strategies.In this study, a search was performed in the PubMed, Scopus, and Scholar Google search engines using the keywords "neurorestorative strategies", "spinal cord injury", "cell therapy", "neuromodulation", and "nerve bridges". Clinical studies published in the English language were included. It is paramount for academic community involved in this field to take the initiative of a multicenter randomized, double-blind, and placebo-control clinical study with high level of evidence-based treatments for most SCI neurorestorative strategies in patient management. It is of utmost need to establish standard therapeutic methods for patients with SCI as early as possible.

“…The recognition of Neurorestoratology as a new clinical discipline depends a great deal on dissemination of its progress. For this reason, we published the first "Yearbook of Neurorestoratology" in 2016 [1]. Assembly of the 2017 "Yearbook of Neurorestoratology" is a work in progress, and is intended to collect and summarize: (1) new finding relating to disease pathogenesis or damage to the nervous system; (2) new neurorestorative pathogenesis of central nervous system diseases.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For this reason, we published the first "Yearbook of Neurorestoratology" in 2016 [1]. Assembly of the 2017 "Yearbook of Neurorestoratology" is a work in progress, and is intended to collect and summarize: (1) new finding relating to disease pathogenesis or damage to the nervous system; (2) new neurorestorative pathogenesis of central nervous system diseases. Huang et al found that lower expression of SPI1 (encoding PU.1) in microglial cells can reduce Alzheimer disease (AD) risk by regulating myeloid gene expression and phagocytic activity [2].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

2017 Yearbook of Neurorestoratology

Huang¹,

Skaper

Mao³

et al. 2018

Self Cite

In 2016 we published the first Yearbook of Neurorestoratology, which summarized pathogenesis in nervous system disease and damage, as well as neurorestorative mechanisms and neurorestorative therapeutic results. Given the progress and achievements occurring in 2017, we have put together those major progresses as the “2017 Yearbook of Neurorestoratology”, which can help readers to easily follow the latest developments in Neurorestoratology.