Externalising deep brain electrodes: an increased risk of infection?

Does Temporary Externalization of Electrodes After Deep Brain Stimulation Surgery Result in a Higher Risk of Infection?

OBJECTIVES

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a well-established surgical therapy for movement disorders that comprises implantation of stimulation electrodes and a pacemaker. These procedures can be performed separately, leaving the possibility of externalizing the electrodes for local field potential recording or testing multiple targets for therapeutic efficacy. It is still debated whether the temporary externalization of DBS electrodes leads to an increased risk of infection. We therefore aimed to assess the risk of infection during and after lead externalization in DBS surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, we analyzed a consecutive series of 624 DBS surgeries, including 266 instances with temporary externalization of DBS electrodes for a mean of 6.1 days. Patients were available for follow-up of at least one year, except in 15 instances. In 14 patients with negative test stimulation, electrodes were removed. All kinds of infections related to implantation of the neurostimulation system were accounted for.

RESULTS

Overall, infections occurred in 22 of 624 surgeries (3.5%). Without externalization of electrodes, infections were noted after 7 of 358 surgeries (2.0%), whereas with externalization, 15 of 252 infections were found (6.0%). This difference was significant (p = 0.01), but it did not reach statistical significance when comparing groups within different diagnoses. The rate of infection with externalized electrodes was highest in psychiatric disorders (9.1%), followed by Parkinson's disease (7.3%), pain (5.7%), and dystonia (5.5%). The duration of the externalization of the DBS electrodes was comparable in patients who developed an infection (6.1 ± 3.1 days) with duration in those who did not (6.0 ± 3.5 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Although infection rates were relatively low in our study, there was a slightly higher infection rate when DBS electrodes were externalized. On the basis of our results, the indication for electrode externalization should be carefully considered, and patients should be informed about the possibility of a higher infection risk when externalization of DBS electrodes is planned.

Surgical Site Infections Associated With Implanted Pulse Generators for Deep Brain Stimulation: Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to identify and systematically analyze relevant literature on surgical site infections (SSIs) associated with implantable pulse generator (IPG) procedures for deep brain stimulation (DBS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses of 58 studies that reported SSI rates of 11,289 patients and 15,956 IPG procedures. A meta-analysis of proportions was performed to estimate the pooled proportion of SSIs across DBS procedures in general and to estimate the proportion of SSIs that occur at the IPG pocket. Moreover, a meta-analysis of odds ratio (OR) was conducted on those studies that reported their results of applying topical vancomycin powder during closure of the IPG wound. Results are presented as rates and OR with 95% CIs.

RESULTS

The pooled proportion of SSIs was 4.9% (95% CI, 4.1%-6.1%) among all DBS procedures. The dominant SSI localization was the IPG pocket in 61.2% (95% CI, 53.4%-68.5%). A trend toward a beneficial effect of vancomycin powder over standard wound closure was found with an OR of 0.46 (95% CI, 0.21-1.02). Most studies (79.1%) that reported their treatment strategy in case of SSI had a strict protocol of removal of the IPG, followed by antimicrobial treatment and reimplantation of the IPG once the SSI had been eradicated.

CONCLUSIONS

The IPG pocket was identified as the main site of SSI after DBS procedures. Most studies recommend complete IPG removal, antimicrobial treatment, and reimplantation of an IPG once the SSI has been eradicated. Future studies are needed to clarify the role of alternative approaches (eg, topical vancomycin powder) in the prevention of SSI associated with IPG.

Risk of Infection after Deep Brain Stimulation Surgery with Externalization and Local-Field Potential Recordings: Twelve-Year Experience from a Single Institution

INTRODUCTION

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has been an established surgical procedure in the field of functional neurosurgery for many years. The experimental electrophysiological method of local field potential (LFP) recordings in postsurgically externalized patients has made substantial contributions to the better understanding of pathophysiologies underlying movement disorders. As interest in LFP recordings for the development of improved stimulation strategies increases, this study's aim was to provide evidence concerning safety of this research method, in a major DBS center.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed incidence and infection characteristics in adult patients who underwent two-staged DBS surgery with temporary externalization of leads in our center between January 2008 and November 2019. We focused on whether patients had participated in LFP recordings, and evaluated incidence of infections at 3 months and 1 year after the surgery based on medical records. Infection rates were compared to major DBS studies and reports focusing on the risk of infection due to externalization of DBS leads. Results were visualized using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Between January 2008 and November 2019, DBS surgery was performed in 528 patients (389/139 patients in the LFP/non-LFP group), mainly for movement disorders such as Parkinson's disease (308), dystonia (93), and essential tremor (86). Of the patients, 72.9% participated in LFP recordings. The incidence of infections in the acute postsurgical phase (3 months) was 2.46% and did not differ significantly between the LFP group (1.8%) and the non-LFP group (4.32%). The overall incidence after 1 year amounted to 3.6% (19 patients) with no difference between LFP/non-LFP groups. Incidence rates reported in the literature show a large variety (2.6-10%), and the incidence reported here is within the lower range of reported incidences.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that DBS is a surgical procedure with a low risk of infection in a large patient cohort. Importantly, it shows that LFP recordings do not have a significant effect on the incidence of infections in patients with externalization. With a representative cohort of more than 380 patients participating in LFP-recordings, this underlines LFP as a safe method in research and supports further use of this method, for example, for the development of adaptive stimulation protocols.

Deep Brain Electrode Externalization and Risk of Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

When evaluating deep brain stimulation (DBS) for newer indications, patients may benefit from trial stimulation prior to permanent implantation or for investigatory purposes. Although several case series have evaluated infectious complications among DBS patients who underwent trials with external hardware, outcomes have been inconsistent.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether a period of lead externalization is associated with an increased risk of infection.

METHODS

We conducted a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses compliant systematic review of all studies that included rates of infection for patients who were externalized prior to DBS implantation. A meta-analysis of proportions was performed to estimate the pooled proportion of infection across studies, and a meta-analysis of relative risks was conducted on those studies that included a control group of nonexternalized patients. Heterogeneity across studies was assessed via I2 index.

RESULTS

Our search retrieved 23 articles, comprising 1354 patients who underwent lead externalization. The pooled proportion of infection was 6.9% (95% CI: 4.7%-9.5%), with a moderate to high level of heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 62.2%; 95% CI: 40.7-75.9; P < .0001). A total of 3 studies, comprising 212 externalized patients, included a control group. Rate of infection in externalized patients was 5.2% as compared to 6.0% in nonexternalized patients. However, meta-analysis was inadequately powered to determine whether there was indeed no difference in infection rate between the groups.

CONCLUSION

The rate of infection in patients with electrode externalization is comparable to that reported in the literature for DBS implantation without a trial period. Future studies are needed before this information can be confidently used in the clinical setting.

Postoperative Externalization of Deep Brain Stimulation Leads Does Not Increase Infection Risk

OBJECTIVES

Externalization of deep brain stimulation (DBS) leads is performed to allow electrophysiological recording from implanted electrodes as well as assessment of clinical response to trial stimulation before implantable pulse generator (IPG) insertion. Hypothetically, lead externalization provides a route for inoculation and subsequent infection of hardware, though this has not been established definitively in the literature. We sought to determine if lead externalization affects the risk of infection in DBS surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We present our center's experience of lead externalization and surgical site infection (SSI) in DBS surgery for movement disorders. Patients were divided into two cohorts: one in which leads were not externalized and IPGs were implanted at the time of electrode insertion, and one in which leads were externalized for six days while patients underwent electrophysiological recording from DBS electrodes for research. We compare baseline characteristics of these two cohorts and their SSI rates.

RESULTS

Infective complications were experienced by 3/82 (3.7%) patients overall with one (1.2%) requiring complete hardware removal. These occurred in 1/36 (2.7%) in the externalized cohort and 2/46 (4.3%) in the nonexternalized cohort. The incidence of infection between the two cohorts was not significantly different (p = 1, two-tailed Fisher's exact test). This lack of significant difference persisted when baseline variation between the cohorts in age, hardware manufacturer, and indication for DBS were corrected by excluding patients implanted for dystonia, none of whom underwent externalization. We present and discuss in detail each of the three cases of infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that externalization of leads does not increase the risk of infective complications in DBS surgery. Lead externalization is a safe procedure which can provide a substrate for unique neurophysiological studies to advance knowledge and therapy of disorders treated with DBS.

A Deep Brain Stimulation Trial Period for Treating Chronic Pain

Early studies of deep brain stimulation (DBS) for various neurological disorders involved a temporary trial period where implanted electrodes were externalized, in which the electrical contacts exiting the patient's brain are connected to external stimulation equipment, so that stimulation efficacy could be determined before permanent implant. As the optimal brain target sites for various diseases (i.e., Parkinson's disease, essential tremor) became better established, such trial periods have fallen out of favor. However, deep brain stimulation trial periods are experiencing a modern resurgence for at least two reasons: (1) studies of newer indications such as depression or chronic pain aim to identify new targets and (2) a growing interest in adaptive DBS tools necessitates neurophysiological recordings, which are often done in the peri-surgical period. In this review, we consider the possible approaches, benefits, and risks of such inpatient trial periods with a specific focus on developing new DBS therapies for chronic pain.

Extrapolating meaning from local field potential recordings

Local field potentials (LFP) reflect the spatially weighted low-frequency activity nearest to a recording electrode. LFP recording is a window to a wide range of cellular activities and has gained increasing attention over recent years. We here review major conceptual issues related to LFP with the goal of creating a resource for non-experts considering implementing LFP into their research. We discuss the cellular activity that constitutes the local field potential; recording techniques, including recommendations and limitations; approaches to analysis of LFP data (with focus on power-banded analyses); and finally we discuss reports of the successful use of LFP in clinical applications.

Maintained deep brain stimulation for severe dystonia despite infection by using externalized electrodes and an extracorporeal pulse generator

Infection in the context of implant surgery is a dreaded complication, usually necessitating the removal of all affected hardware. Severe dystonia is a debilitating condition that can present as an emergency and can occasionally be life threatening. The authors present 2 cases of severe dystonia in which deep brain stimulation was maintained despite the presence of infection, using ongoing stimulation by externalization of electrode wires and an extracorporeal pulse generator. This allowed the infection to clear and wounds to heal while maintaining stimulation. This strategy is similar to that used in the management of infected cardiac pacemakers. The authors suggest that this prolonged extracorporeal stimulation should be considered by neurosurgeons in the face of this difficult clinical situation.