Search

Background: Based on the lack of literature to support any treatment strategy in patients with foot drop due to peroneal nerve entrapment, a prospective study randomizing patients between surgery and conservative treatment is warranted. Since studies comparing surgery to no surgery are often challenging, we first examined the feasibility of such a randomized controlled trial., Methods/design: An internal feasibility pilot study was conducted to assess several aspects of process, resource, management, and scientific feasibility. The main objective was the assessment of the recruitment rate. The criterion to embark on a full study was the recruitment of at least 14 patients in 6 participating centers within 6 months. Cross-over rate, blinding measures, training strategies, and trial assessments were evaluated. The trial was entirely funded by the KCE Trials public funding program of the Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (ID KCE19-1232)., Results: The initial duration was prolonged due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Between April 2021 and October 2022, we included 19 patients of which 15 were randomized. Fourteen patients were treated as randomized. One drop-out occurred after randomization, prior to surgery. We did not document any cross-over or accidental unblinding. Training strategies were successful. Patients perceived the quality of life questionnaire as the least relevant assessment. Assessment of ankle dorsiflexion range of motion was prone to interobserver variability. All other trial assessments were adequate., Discussion: Recruitment of the anticipated 14 patients was feasible although slower than expected. The Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) and assessment of ankle dorsiflexion range of motion will no longer be included in the full-scale FOOTDROP trial., Conclusion: The FOOTDROP study is feasible., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT04695834 . Registered 4 January 2021., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: High-quality evidence is lacking to support one treatment strategy over another in patients with foot drop due to peroneal nerve entrapment. This leads to strong variation in daily practice., Methods/design: The FOOTDROP (Follow-up and Outcome of Operative Treatment with Decompressive Release Of The Peroneal nerve) trial is a randomized, multi-centre study in which patients with peroneal nerve entrapment and persistent foot drop, despite initial conservative treatment, will be randomized 10 (± 4) weeks after onset between non-invasive treatment and surgical decompression. The primary endpoint is the difference in distance covered during the 6-min walk test between randomization and 9 months later. Time to recovery is the key secondary endpoint. Other secondary outcome measures encompass ankle dorsiflexion strength (MRC score and isometric dynamometry), gait assessment (10-m walk test, functional ambulation categories, Stanmore questionnaire), patient-reported outcome measures (EQ5D-5L), surgical complications, neurological deficits (sensory changes, motor scores for ankle eversion and hallux extension), health economic assessment (WPAI) and electrodiagnostic assessment., Discussion: The results of this randomized trial may elucidate the role of surgical decompression of the peroneal nerve and aid in clinical decision-making., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04695834. Registered on 4 January 2021., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

•Pandemic conditions imposed withholding or withdrawing neurosurgical treatment.•Variation exist in the management of intracranial haemorrhage or TBI during a pandemic.•Triaging guidelines for neurosurgical patients need to be established., Competing Interests: All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript., (© 2022 The Authors.)

Introduction: A causal relationship between SDAVF's and cervical myelopathy is exceedingly rare. 1-2% of these lesions are located at the craniocervical junction of which 12% are caused by arterial feeders from the external carotid artery. A correct diagnosis can be challenging with a high rate of initial misdiagnosis., Research Question: Which aspects constitute the most important potential pitfalls in the diagnostic workup and treatment of SDAVF's with feeders from the external carotid artery causing cervical myelopathy?, Material and Methods: We performed a PRISMA-guided review of the literature in which fourteen articles were included. We illustrate the diagnostic hazards through one of our own cases., Results: SDAVF's at the cervical segment contain unique clinical and radiographic characteristics which differ from those elsewhere. Cervical myelopathy is caused by a SDAVF in 2.3% of cases. Pitfalls are numerous and diagnosis can be challenging, due to a broad differential diagnosis, potential isolated lower extremity involvement and absence of spinal cord edema on MRI. MR-alterations not always correlate with fistula localization., Discussion and Conclusion: A SDAVF should be part of the differential diagnosis in patients with subacute tetraparesis. When MRI shows signal alterations in combination with enlarged perimedullary vessels, a SDAVF should be suspected. Spinal angiography should include the vertebrobasilar system, as well as the internal and external carotid arteries. Early and adequate occlusion by means of an endovascular or neurosurgical approach of the draining radicular veins should be pursued. A multidisciplinary approach is key in the diagnostic workup and treatment of these patients., (© 2021 The Authors.)