Clinical case 06
Stabilisation and functional improvement in a progressive cerebellar syndrome
woman, 54 · Belgium
Patient record
- Patient
- woman, 54
- Country
- Belgium
- Diagnosis
- progressive cerebellar syndrome of undetermined cause, with predominantly axial involvement
- Main features before treatment
- ataxic gait, marked impairment of balance and coordination, dysmetria, dysarthria, reduced endurance, episodes of falling, cognitive complaints
- Treatment given
- an individual autologous cell and neuroregenerative protocol
- Course after treatment
- clinical stabilisation, improved coordination and cognitive function
History
Over roughly two years the patient's signs of cerebellar dysfunction gradually increased.
Balance and steadiness on walking deteriorated first. In time she began to fall, the distance she could walk shortened and marked fatigue appeared. Dysarthria and impaired coordination of movement were also noted. One of the neurological reports described complaints of poorer memory.
Clinical examination found a marked cerebellar syndrome:
- ataxic gait
- marked unsteadiness of balance
- dysmetria
- dysarthria
- impairment on coordination testing
There was no objective weakness or marked sensory deficit in the limbs.
Subsequent MRI showed atrophy of the pons and of both cerebellar hemispheres, with no focal progressive brain lesions found.
The common genetic variants of spinocerebellar ataxia – SCA1, SCA2, SCA3, SCA6 and SCA7 – were excluded, so the search for a hereditary cause continued.
Before treatment
At the time she came to us the most significant problems were:
- progressive impairment of balance
- ataxic gait
- deteriorating coordination of movement
- episodes of falling
- dysarthria
- reduced physical endurance
- rapid fatigue
- complaints of cognitive difficulty
The disease was gradually progressive, so one of the key aims was to achieve stabilisation and preserve the patient's functional independence.
The programme
A personalised autologous cell and neuroregenerative programme was designed for the patient.
At the preparatory stage the following were carried out:
- bone marrow aspiration
- collection of peripheral blood to obtain her own cell material
The programme included:
- autologous cell therapy
- use of her own regulatory T cells
- a systemic cell component
- neurally induced mesenchymal cells
- exosome therapy
- two sessions of neurotherapy
The exact doses and technical parameters formed part of an individual internal protocol.
An important feature of this case was the close working relationship with the patient's neurologist in Belgium. During follow-up a joint three-way consultation was held with the patient, her treating specialist and our medical team, which allowed the clinical course to be assessed together.
Course after treatment
After the programme, clinical stabilisation was noted: the steady increase in neurological impairment seen previously was no longer observed over the follow-up period.
At the same time functional improvements appeared.
Coordination
The patient noted improved control and precision of movement.
The incoordination became less marked, movements became more assured, and steadiness during everyday tasks improved.
Cognitive function
Positive change in cognitive function was also noted – clarity of thought, concentration and the ability to hold on to information all improved as she experienced them.
General condition
With the neurological picture stabilised, the patient began to feel functionally more confident, which mattered particularly given how the disease had been progressing before the programme began.
Outcome
The most important results in this case were:
- stabilisation of a previously progressive disease;
- improved coordination
- greater steadiness and control of movement
- improved cognitive function.
What was particularly significant here was the combination of a personalised regenerative programme with continuous cooperation with the patient's own neurologist. That allowed the result to be judged not in isolation but within full, ongoing neurological follow-up.
This case is described from the patient's medical records and observation over the period after the programme. No personal data is published. The course of the disease and the response to treatment differ from patient to patient.