Evidence Hub

A Rare Case of Posterior Fossa Syndrome Associated with Neuropathic Pain Successfully Treated with a Combination of Gabapentin, Diazepam and Baclofen-A Case Report and Literature Review

Giglio M, Corriero A, Perillo T, Varrassi G, Puntillo F

Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2024

1 citation

Abstract

Background: Posterior fossa syndrome (PFS), also known as cerebellar mutism syndrome, occurs in about 25% of pediatric patients undergoing resection of a posterior cranial fossa medulloblastoma. It is characterized primarily by mutism or reduced/impaired speech and may include variable symptoms such as motor dysfunction (apraxia, ataxia, hypotonia), supranuclear cranial nerve palsies, neurocognitive changes, and emotional lability. Long-term multidisciplinary rehabilitation is typically required, with recovery taking approximately six months, though many children experience long-term residual deficits. Neuropathic pain associated with PFS is rarely reported in pediatric patients, and evidence for its management is limited.

Methods: This case report describes a 10-year-old boy who developed PFS following incomplete resection of a medulloblastoma. Clinical presentation included mutism, irritability, emotional lability, sleep disturbances, and neuropathic pain localized at the C5 level. The patient was treated with a combination of gabapentin, diazepam, and baclofen.

Results: The combined pharmacological approach resulted in successful management of the patient's neuropathic pain and other symptoms associated with PFS, improving his overall condition.

Conclusions: This case highlights the potential effectiveness of a multimodal pharmacological regimen for treating neuropathic pain and associated symptoms in pediatric patients with PFS. Further research is needed to explore…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case report, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free