"However, recent cases of successful SDR procedures among those with spastic diplegia across all major age ranges (years 3-40) has finally proven its universal effectiveness and safety regardless of the age of the spastic diplegic patient." 

 No citation for this, and "universal effectiveness and safety" seems strong. 

 "In general, there is a combined 5-10% risk of any of the following more serious risks happening as a result of SDR. Because of technological advances in both the technology used in the surgery and also in the procedure itself, there have been no major cases of SDR that have had these side-effects." 

 Again, the second sentence seems tacked on and doesn't seem right - how would they know there were these side-effects if no cases have had them? 

 I think the whole article needs looking at - seems quite biased towards the surgery.