Talk:Selective dorsal rhizotomy

message: "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.
===Response to the above user===
(1) There have been recent cases that have proven its universal effectiveness across both older and younger people. I'm one of those examples and I know several people older than me. We physically prove it, and my upcoming documentary will show that (in the meantime you're free to look at the cases that are publicly available on the internet).
(2) The reason it is known that there are side-effects of these types is because a few people historically have had them, but it's not possible via simple internet searches to find out who the people are who have had them. The article does not say that no cases of SDR have had these side effects; it says that no major (i.e. no visibly, widely known) cases have had these side effects. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to list the side effects, just as it is equally important to list what neurosurgeons who do this surgery say is the percentage of likelihood of the side-effects occurring. I have heard some neurosurgeons say 5% and some neurosurgeons say closer to and including 10%, so the only solution is to publish a 'range' rather than a specific percentage. 
(3) The article only seems biased towards the surgery because the positive aspects consistently and tangibly outweigh any negative ones. Unless the surgery is done wrong, by people who don't know what they're doing, which is a separate matter than the surgery itself (any surgery can be done wrong, and this doesn't mean the surgery itself then suffers reputational damage), the surgery is basically universally positive. If you seek to balance the article by adding negative information, please be sure you have citations for those negative aspects, because personally, the only examples of rhizotomy turning out negatively that I have either talked to people about or have been able to research academically, have come as a result of a surgeon being clueless and/or shoddy. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 08:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: note

message: (1) There have been recent cases that have proven its universal effectiveness across both older and younger people. I'm one of those examples and I know several people older than me. We physically prove it, and my upcoming documentary will show that (in the meantime you're free to look at the cases that are publicly available on the internet).
(2) The reason it is known that there are side-effects of these types is because a few people historically have had them, but it's not possible via simple internet searches to find out who the people are who have had them. The article does not say that no cases of SDR have had these side effects; it says that no major (i.e. no visibly, widely known) cases have had these side effects. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to list the side effects, just as it is equally important to list what neurosurgeons who do this surgery say is the percentage of likelihood of the side-effects occurring. I have heard some neurosurgeons say 5% and some neurosurgeons say closer to and including 10%, so the only solution is to publish a 'range' rather than a specific percentage. 
(3) The article only seems biased towards the surgery because the positive aspects consistently and tangibly outweigh any negative ones. Unless the surgery is done wrong, by people who don't know what they're doing, which is a separate matter than the surgery itself (any surgery can be done wrong, and this doesn't mean the surgery itself then suffers reputational damage), the surgery is basically universally positive. If you seek to balance the article by adding negative information, please be sure you have citations for those negative aspects, because personally, the only examples of rhizotomy turning out negatively that I have either talked to people about or have been able to research academically, have come as a result of a surgeon being clueless and/or shoddy. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 08:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to the above user

message: I'd like to make several different edits to this page including grammar, addition of reliable sources, expansion of certain sections (including complications, intro, and background), and adding some pictures to make the page more appealing to the eye. I would also like to look into more functional outcomes and perhaps clinical presentations of patients with spasticity prior to the selective dorsal Rhizotomy surgery. I have listed a few different sources that I think will help- I will continue to add to the repertoire of sources as time goes on.
Farmer, J., & Sabbagh, A. J. (2007). Selective dorsal rhizotomies in the treatment of spasticity related to cerebral palsy. Child's Nervous System, 23(9), 991-1002. doi:10.1007/s00381-007-0398-2
Golan, Jeff & Hall, Jeffery & O'Gorman, Gus & Poulin, Chantal & Ezer Benaroch, Thierry & Cantin, Marie-Andree & Farmer, Jean-Pierre. (2007). Spinal deformities following selective dorsal rhizotomy. Journal of neurosurgery. 106. 441-9. 10.3171/ped.2007.106.6.441.
Cahill-Rowley, K., & Rose, J. (2014). Etiology of impaired selective motor control: emerging evidence and its implications for research and treatment in cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 56(6), 522-528. doi:10.1111/dmcn.12355
Bolster, E. A., Schie, P. E., Becher, J. G., Ouwerkerk, W. J., Strijers, R. L., & Vermeulen, R. J. (2013). Long-term effect of selective dorsal rhizotomy on gross motor function in ambulant children with spastic bilateral cerebral palsy, compared with reference centiles. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 55(7), 610-616. doi:10.1111/dmcn.12148
AlexLamphear (talk) 20:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional ideas for the article 

message: Overall this article has a good start. I would suggest going through the article and try to find all of the places where references could be made. There are some claims made throughout the article that are not shown to be backed up by the literature. For example: in the first paragraph, there is a reference that SDR is the most common rhizotomy procedure performed. I believe this should have a reference to show that it is factual. The rest of the paragraph after that could probably use a reference too. This is just one example but I found many throughout. I would also suggest either making separate pages for the different types of rhizotomies, or more simply, just have a section that goes over what the different types are and how they differ.Codystgermain (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Few Points 

message: Hi! The article is looking good I just have a few questions. Did you find any new information on long term effects of SDR or do you know if it is being further researched?
I was also looking at the background information and noticed there weren't any citations. Did you find some research to back up that information? Hpeabody (talk) 01:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  A couple questions about research 

message: Could have a new section summarising where SDR is available. I don't have sources but from newspapers I gather it has limited and growing availability in the UK since 2010 - eg at Leicester childrens hospital (Dr J Goodden has done at least 93 SDRs). What's the situation in say Canada, France, Germany etc and various states of the USA ? - Rod57 (talk) 08:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is SDR available 

message: Good article so far. A section that would be useful would be to mention long term effects post surgery such as arthritis, returning spasticity, or whether there are tweaking surgeries down the road for these patients  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.13.129.14 (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longterm effects 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. Moved without Wikipedia:Consensusconsensus, as an Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requestsuncontested technical request. Any objection within a reasonable time frame should result in the move being reverted and the request being reopened. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Rhizotomy →  – I read this entire article and barely caught the Note at the bottom letting me know it was not in fact about the topic I had come for. The note gives a clear, unambiguous term "Selective Dorsal Rhizotomy", which seems like it would be a good new name for the article.  At the very least, if the move is contested, the note should be converted back to a Hatnote so others don't wind up in my situation. The John Hopkins page on Rhizotomy (archive) seems to cover all of the procedures, not just this one for spasticity. Cleveland Clinic refers to Rhizotomy as an "umbrella term". rubah (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 9 May 2024