A simple and cost-effective method of fixation of deep brain stimulation (DBS) electrode

Image analysis of the intracranial lead bending phenomenon during deep brain stimulation

Background

An accurate and precise surgical procedure is crucial for patient safety and treatment efficacy of deep brain stimulation (DBS).

Objectives

To investigate the characteristics of intracranial lead bending phenomenon after DBS, and to suggest the methods to avoid bending-related complications.

Methods

A retrospective review of brain computed tomography scans after DBS was performed. Using 3-dimensional reconstruction, the maximal distance between the planned trajectory and actual lead location was measured. When the distance exceeded the lead body diameter, the lead was considered bent. The distance between the bending point and planned trajectory, and the relative direction between the bending point and lead securing site were analyzed. Changes over time in the range of lead bending and depth were analyzed when possible.

Results

A total of 190 implanted leads in 102 patients were analyzed; 104 leads (54.7%) were bent. The average deviation of bent leads was 2.3 mm (range, 1.3–7.1 mm). Thirty-five (18.4%) and seven leads (3.7%) had deviations exceeding twice and three times the lead body diameter, respectively. Angles between the deviation point and securing site at the skull ranged from 135–180° in 83 leads (53.2%), 45–135° in 58 (37.2%), and 0–45° in 15 (9.6%). Among 17 leads that were initially bent, 16 had less deviation compared to baseline. The lead depth increased in 35 (92.1%) of 38 leads by 1.2 mm (range, 0.1–4.7 mm).

Conclusion

The extent of lead bending should be considered during the planning and procedural phases of intracranial lead implantation for DBS.

Cost analysis of awake versus asleep deep brain stimulation: a single academic health center experience

OBJECT

The objective of this study was to compare the cost of deep brain stimulation (DBS) performed awake versus asleep at a single US academic health center and to compare costs across the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) Clinical Database.

METHODS

Inpatient and outpatient demographic and hospital financial data for patients receiving a neurostimulator lead implant (from the first quarter of 2009 to the second quarter of 2014) were collected and analyzed. Inpatient charges included those associated with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) procedure code 0293 (implantation or replacement of intracranial neurostimulator lead). Outpatient charges included all preoperative charges ≤ 30 days prior to implant and all postoperative charges ≤ 30 days after implant. The cost of care based on reported charges and a cost-to-charge ratio was estimated. The UHC database was queried (January 2011 to March 2014) with the same ICD-9 code. Procedure cost data across like hospitals (27 UHC hospitals) conducting similar DBS procedures were compared.

RESULTS

Two hundred eleven DBS procedures (53 awake and 158 asleep) were performed at a single US academic health center during the study period. The average patient age ( ± SD) was 65 ± 9 years old and 39% of patients were female. The most common primary diagnosis was Parkinson’s disease (61.1%) followed by essential and other forms of tremor (36%). Overall average DBS procedure cost was $39,152 ± $5340. Asleep DBS cost $38,850 ± $4830, which was not significantly different than the awake DBS cost of $40,052 ± $6604. The standard deviation for asleep DBS was significantly lower (p ≤ 0.05). In 2013, the median cost for a neurostimulator implant lead was $34,052 at UHC-affiliated hospitals that performed at least 5 procedures a year. At Oregon Health & Science University, the median cost was $17,150 and the observed single academic health center cost for a neurostimulator lead implant was less than the expected cost (ratio 0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

In this single academic medical center cost analysis, DBS performed asleep was associated with a lower cost variation relative to the awake procedure. Furthermore, costs compared favorably to UHC-affiliated hospitals. While asleep DBS is not yet standard practice, this center exclusively performs asleep DBS at a lower cost than comparable institutions.

An S-shaped incision for the insertion of deep brain stimulators

BACKGROUND

The S-shaped incision is a novel technique we have developed to minimise wound complications for the insertion of bilateral deep brain stimulators.

METHODS

An S-shaped incision incorporating both burrholes allows better exposure compared to the traditional bilateral incisions. The burrholes are drilled under each limb of the S and the incision does not run across them, decreasing the risk of infection. The electrodes are subsequently tunneled down the right side and connected to the battery.

CONCLUSION

The use of the S-shaped incision results in less wound and electrode complications compared to the traditional bilateral linear incisions in our experience.

Postoperative Displacement of Deep Brain Stimulation Electrodes Related to Lead-Anchoring Technique

BACKGROUND:

Displacement of deep brain stimulation (DBS) electrodes may occur after surgery, especially due to large subdural air collections, but other factors might contribute.

OBJECTIVE:

To investigate factors potentially contributing to postoperative electrode displacement, in particular, different lead-anchoring techniques.

METHODS:

We retrospectively analyzed 55 patients (106 electrodes) with Parkinson disease, dystonia, tremor, and obsessive-compulsive disorder in whom early postoperative and long-term follow-up computed tomography (CT) was performed. Electrodes were anchored with a titanium microplate or with a commercially available plastic cap system. Two independent examiners determined the stereotactic coordinates of the deepest DBS contact on early postoperative and long-term follow-up CT. The influence of age, surgery duration, subdural air volume, use of microrecordings, fixation method, follow-up time, and side operated on first was assessed.

RESULTS:

Subdural air collections measured on average 4.3 ± 6.2 cm3. Three-dimensional (3-D) electrode displacement and displacement in the X, Y, and Z axes significantly correlated only with the anchoring method, with larger displacement for microplate-anchored electrodes. The average 3-D displacement for microplate-anchored electrodes was 2.3 ± 2.0 mm vs 1.5 ± 0.6 mm for electrodes anchored with the plastic cap (P = .030). Fifty percent of the microplate-anchored electrodes showed 2-mm or greater (potentially relevant) 3-D displacement vs only 25% of the plastic cap–anchored electrodes (P < .01).

CONCLUSION:

The commercially available plastic cap system is more efficient in preventing postoperative DBS electrode displacement than titanium microplates. A reliability analysis of the electrode fixation is warranted when alternative anchoring methods are used.

Diagnosis and treatment of complications related to deep brain stimulation hardware

Deep brain stimulation is a therapeutic technique increasingly used in the treatment of a variety of neurological, psychiatric, and pain disorders. Although beneficial, it carries the immediate and long-term risks associated with implanted hardware in the brain parenchyma and subcutaneous tissue. The most common hardware complications include electrode migrations or misplacements, wire fractures, skin erosion, infections, and device malfunction. We systematically reviewed the literature on deep brain stimulation-related complications and propose a diagnostic and therapeutic algorithm. Our aim is to provide a guide for clinicians and medical staff involved in the treatment of patients with deep brain stimulation for rapid recognition and efficient management of these complications.

Electroconvulsive therapy in the presence of deep brain stimulation implants: electric field effects

The safety of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in patients who have deep brain stimulation (DBS) implants represents a significant clinical issue. A major safety concern is the presence of burr holes and electrode anchoring devices in the skull, which may alter the induced electric field distribution in the brain. We simulated the electric field using finite-element method in a five-shell spherical head model. Three DBS electrode anchoring techniques were modeled, including ring/cap, microplate, and burr-hole cover. ECT was modeled with bilateral (BL), right unilateral (RUL), and bifrontal (BF) electrode placements and with clinically-used stimulus current amplitude. We compared electric field strength and focality among the DBS implantation techniques and ECT electrode configurations. The simulation results show an increase in the electric field strength in the brain due to conduction through the burr holes, especially when the burr holes are not fitted with nonconductive caps. For typical burr hole placement for subthalamic nucleus DBS, the effect on the electric field strength and focality is strongest for BF ECT, which runs contrary to the belief that more anterior ECT electrode placements are safer in patients with DBS implants.