1
|
Berki ÁJ, Ding H, Palotai M, Halász L, Erőss L, Fekete G, Bognár L, Barsi P, Kelemen A, Jávor-Duray B, Pichner É, Muthuraman M, Tamás G. Subthalamic stimulation evokes hyperdirect high beta interruption and cortical high gamma entrainment in Parkinson's disease. NPJ Parkinsons Dis 2025; 11:95. [PMID: 40287435 PMCID: PMC12033315 DOI: 10.1038/s41531-025-00965-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/31/2024] [Accepted: 04/08/2025] [Indexed: 04/29/2025] Open
Abstract
Compound network dynamics in beta and gamma bands determine the severity of bradykinesia in Parkinson's disease. We explored its subthalamic stimulation related changes parallel with improvement of complex hand movements. Thirty eight patients with Parkinson's disease treated with bilateral stimulation accomplished voluntary and traced spiral drawing with their more affected hand on a digital tablet. A 64 channel electroencephalography was recorded, low and high beta and gamma power was computed in subthalamic and motor cortical sources at four stimulation levels. Subthalamic cortical effective connectivity was calculated, and subnetwork models were created. Beta power decreased, and gamma power increased in sources ipsilateral to stimulation with increasing stimulation intensity. Networks comprising the primary motor cortex played a dominant role in predicting the improvement of voluntary drawing speed. Subthalamic stimulation diminished the hyperdirect high beta information processing and promoted the cortico cortical interactions of the primary motor cortex in the high gamma band.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Hao Ding
- Department of Neurology, Julius-Maximilians-Universität of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
| | - Marcell Palotai
- Department of Neurology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary
| | - László Halász
- Department of Neurosurgery and Neurointervention, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary
| | - Loránd Erőss
- Department of Neurosurgery and Neurointervention, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary
| | - Gábor Fekete
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
| | - László Bognár
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
| | - Péter Barsi
- Department of Neuroradiology, Medical Imaging Centre, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary
| | - Andrea Kelemen
- Department of Neurology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary
| | | | - Éva Pichner
- Department of Neurology, Bajcsy-Zsilinszky Hospital and Clinic, Budapest, Hungary
| | - Muthuraman Muthuraman
- Department of Neurology, Julius-Maximilians-Universität of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
- Informatics for Medical Technology, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany
| | - Gertrúd Tamás
- Department of Neurology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Okun MS, Hickey PT, Machado AG, Kuncel AM, Grill WM. Temporally optimized patterned stimulation (TOPS®) as a therapy to personalize deep brain stimulation treatment of Parkinson’s disease. Front Hum Neurosci 2022; 16:929509. [PMID: 36092643 PMCID: PMC9454097 DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2022.929509] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/26/2022] [Accepted: 07/27/2022] [Indexed: 12/05/2022] Open
Abstract
Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a well-established therapy for the motor symptoms of Parkinson’s disease (PD), but there remains an opportunity to improve symptom relief. The temporal pattern of stimulation is a new parameter to consider in DBS therapy, and we compared the effectiveness of Temporally Optimized Patterned Stimulation (TOPS) to standard DBS at reducing the motor symptoms of PD. Twenty-six subjects with DBS for PD received three different patterns of stimulation (two TOPS and standard) while on medication and using stimulation parameters optimized for standard DBS. Side effects and motor symptoms were assessed after 30 min of stimulation with each pattern. Subjects experienced similar types of side effects with TOPS and standard DBS, and TOPS were well-tolerated by a majority of the subjects. On average, the most effective TOPS was as effective as standard DBS at reducing the motor symptoms of PD. In some subjects a TOPS pattern was the most effective pattern. Finally, the TOPS pattern with low average frequency was found to be as effective or more effective in about half the subjects while substantially reducing estimated stimulation energy use. TOPS DBS may provide a new programing option to improve DBS therapy for PD by improving symptom reduction and/or increasing energy efficiency. Optimizing stimulation parameters specifically for TOPS DBS may demonstrate further clinical benefit of TOPS DBS in treating the motor symptoms of Parkinson’s disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael S. Okun
- Department of Neurology, Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States
- *Correspondence: Michael S. Okun,
| | - Patrick T. Hickey
- Department of Neurology, Movement Disorders Center, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States
| | - Andre G. Machado
- Department of Neurology, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, United States
| | | | - Warren M. Grill
- Deep Brain Innovations, Cleveland, OH, United States
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Litvak V, Florin E, Tamás G, Groppa S, Muthuraman M. EEG and MEG primers for tracking DBS network effects. Neuroimage 2020; 224:117447. [PMID: 33059051 DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117447] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/17/2020] [Revised: 10/08/2020] [Accepted: 10/08/2020] [Indexed: 10/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an effective treatment method for a range of neurological and psychiatric disorders. It involves implantation of stimulating electrodes in a precisely guided fashion into subcortical structures and, at a later stage, chronic stimulation of these structures with an implantable pulse generator. While the DBS surgery makes it possible to both record brain activity and stimulate parts of the brain that are difficult to reach with non-invasive techniques, electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) provide complementary information from other brain areas, which can be used to characterize brain networks targeted through DBS. This requires, however, the careful consideration of different types of artifacts in the data acquisition and the subsequent analyses. Here, we review both the technical issues associated with EEG/MEG recordings in DBS patients and the experimental findings to date. One major line of research is simultaneous recording of local field potentials (LFPs) from DBS targets and EEG/MEG. These studies revealed a set of cortico-subcortical coherent networks functioning at distinguishable physiological frequencies. Specific network responses were linked to clinical state, task or stimulation parameters. Another experimental approach is mapping of DBS-targeted networks in chronically implanted patients by recording EEG/MEG responses during stimulation. One can track responses evoked by single stimulation pulses or bursts as well as brain state shifts caused by DBS. These studies have the potential to provide biomarkers for network responses that can be adapted to guide stereotactic implantation or optimization of stimulation parameters. This is especially important for diseases where the clinical effect of DBS is delayed or develops slowly over time. The same biomarkers could also potentially be utilized for the online control of DBS network effects in the new generation of closed-loop stimulators that are currently entering clinical use. Through future studies, the use of network biomarkers may facilitate the integration of circuit physiology into clinical decision making.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vladimir Litvak
- The Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, London, UK
| | - Esther Florin
- Institute of Clinical Neuroscience and Medical Psychology, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
| | - Gertrúd Tamás
- Department of Neurology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary
| | - Sergiu Groppa
- Movement disorders and Neurostimulation, Biomedical Statistics and Multimodal Signal Processing Unit, Department of Neurology, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University, Langenbeckstrasse 1, 55131 Mainz, Germany
| | - Muthuraman Muthuraman
- Movement disorders and Neurostimulation, Biomedical Statistics and Multimodal Signal Processing Unit, Department of Neurology, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University, Langenbeckstrasse 1, 55131 Mainz, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Schmidt SL, Peters JJ, Turner DA, Grill WM. Continuous deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus may not modulate beta bursts in patients with Parkinson's disease. Brain Stimul 2020; 13:433-443. [PMID: 31884188 PMCID: PMC6961347 DOI: 10.1016/j.brs.2019.12.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/20/2019] [Revised: 11/19/2019] [Accepted: 12/10/2019] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Neural oscillations represent synchronous neuronal activation and are ubiquitous throughout the brain. Oscillatory activity often includes brief high-amplitude bursts in addition to background oscillations, and burst activity may predict performance on working memory, motor, and comprehension tasks. OBJECTIVE We evaluated beta burst activity as a possible biomarker for motor symptoms in Parkinson's disease (PD). The relationship between beta amplitude dynamics and motor symptoms is critical for adaptive DBS for treatment of PD. METHODS We applied threshold-based and support vector machine (SVM) analyses of burst parameters to a defined on/off oscillator and to intraoperative recordings of local field potentials from the subthalamic nucleus of 16 awake patients with PD. RESULTS Filtering and time-frequency analysis techniques critically influenced the accuracy of identifying burst activity. Threshold-based analysis lead to biased results in the presence of changes in long-term beta amplitude and accurate quantification of bursts with thresholds required unknowable a priori knowledge of the time in bursts. We therefore implemented an SVM analysis, and we did not observe changes in burst fraction, rate, or duration with the application of cDBS in the participant data, even though SVM analysis was able to correctly identify bursts of the defined on/off oscillator. CONCLUSION Our results suggest that cDBS of the STN may not change beta burst activity. Additionally, threshold-based analysis can bias the fraction of time spent in bursts. Improved analysis strategies for continuous and adaptive DBS may achieve improved symptom control and reduce side-effects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephen L Schmidt
- Biomedical Engineering Department, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
| | | | - Dennis A Turner
- Biomedical Engineering Department, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Neurobiology and Neurosurgery Departments, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Warren M Grill
- Biomedical Engineering Department, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Neurobiology and Neurosurgery Departments, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA; Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Swan BD, Brocker DT, Gross RE, Turner DA, Grill WM. Effects of ramped-frequency thalamic deep brain stimulation on tremor and activity of modeled neurons. Clin Neurophysiol 2019; 131:625-634. [PMID: 31978847 DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2019.11.060] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/16/2019] [Revised: 11/18/2019] [Accepted: 11/23/2019] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE We conducted intraoperative measurements of tremor to quantify the effects of temporally patterned ramped-frequency DBS trains on tremor. METHODS Seven patterns of stimulation were tested in nine subjects with thalamic DBS for essential tremor: stimulation 'off', three ramped-frequency stimulation (RFS) trains from 130 → 50 Hz, 130 → 60 Hz, and 235 → 90 Hz, and three constant frequency stimulation (CFS) trains at 72, 82, and 130 Hz. The same patterns were applied to a computational model of the thalamic neural network. RESULTS Temporally patterned 130 → 60 Hz ramped-frequency trains suppressed tremor relative to stimulation 'off,' but 130 → 50 Hz, 130 → 60 Hz, and 235 → 90 Hz ramped-frequency trains were no more effective than constant frequency stimulation with the same mean interpulse interval (IPI). Computational modeling revealed that rhythmic burst-driver inputs to thalamus were masked during DBS, but long IPIs, concurrent with pauses in afferent cerebellar and cortical firing, allowed propagation of bursting activity. The mean firing rate of bursting-type model neurons as well as the firing pattern entropy of model neurons were both strongly correlated with tremor power across stimulation conditions. CONCLUSION Frequency-ramped DBS produced equivalent tremor suppression as constant frequency thalamic DBS. Tremor-related thalamic burst activity may result from burst-driver input, rather than by an intrinsic rebound mechanism. SIGNIFICANCE Ramping stimulation frequency may exacerbate thalamic burst firing by introducing consecutive pauses of increasing duration to the stimulation pattern.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brandon D Swan
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - David T Brocker
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Robert E Gross
- Department of Neurosurgery, Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Dennis A Turner
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Department of Neurobiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA; Department of Neurosurgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Warren M Grill
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Department of Neurobiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA; Department of Neurosurgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA; Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Ramirez-Zamora A, Giordano JJ, Gunduz A, Brown P, Sanchez JC, Foote KD, Almeida L, Starr PA, Bronte-Stewart HM, Hu W, McIntyre C, Goodman W, Kumsa D, Grill WM, Walker HC, Johnson MD, Vitek JL, Greene D, Rizzuto DS, Song D, Berger TW, Hampson RE, Deadwyler SA, Hochberg LR, Schiff ND, Stypulkowski P, Worrell G, Tiruvadi V, Mayberg HS, Jimenez-Shahed J, Nanda P, Sheth SA, Gross RE, Lempka SF, Li L, Deeb W, Okun MS. Evolving Applications, Technological Challenges and Future Opportunities in Neuromodulation: Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Deep Brain Stimulation Think Tank. Front Neurosci 2018; 11:734. [PMID: 29416498 PMCID: PMC5787550 DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2017.00734] [Citation(s) in RCA: 44] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/19/2017] [Accepted: 12/15/2017] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
The annual Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) Think Tank provides a focal opportunity for a multidisciplinary ensemble of experts in the field of neuromodulation to discuss advancements and forthcoming opportunities and challenges in the field. The proceedings of the fifth Think Tank summarize progress in neuromodulation neurotechnology and techniques for the treatment of a range of neuropsychiatric conditions including Parkinson's disease, dystonia, essential tremor, Tourette syndrome, obsessive compulsive disorder, epilepsy and cognitive, and motor disorders. Each section of this overview of the meeting provides insight to the critical elements of discussion, current challenges, and identified future directions of scientific and technological development and application. The report addresses key issues in developing, and emphasizes major innovations that have occurred during the past year. Specifically, this year's meeting focused on technical developments in DBS, design considerations for DBS electrodes, improved sensors, neuronal signal processing, advancements in development and uses of responsive DBS (closed-loop systems), updates on National Institutes of Health and DARPA DBS programs of the BRAIN initiative, and neuroethical and policy issues arising in and from DBS research and applications in practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Adolfo Ramirez-Zamora
- Department of Neurology, Center for Movement Disorders and Neurorestoration, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States,*Correspondence: Adolfo Ramirez-Zamora
| | - James J. Giordano
- Department of Neurology, Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Aysegul Gunduz
- J. Crayton Pruitt Family Department of Biomedical Engineering, Center for Movement Disorders and Neurorestoration, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States
| | - Peter Brown
- Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Justin C. Sanchez
- Biological Technologies Office, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Arlington, VA, United States
| | - Kelly D. Foote
- Department of Neurosurgery, Center for Movement Disorders and Neurorestoration, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States
| | - Leonardo Almeida
- Department of Neurology, Center for Movement Disorders and Neurorestoration, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States
| | - Philip A. Starr
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Kavli Institute for Fundamental Neuroscience, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States
| | - Helen M. Bronte-Stewart
- Departments of Neurology and Neurological Sciences and Neurosurgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States
| | - Wei Hu
- Department of Neurology, Center for Movement Disorders and Neurorestoration, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States
| | - Cameron McIntyre
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, United States
| | - Wayne Goodman
- Department of Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States,Department of Neuroscience, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States
| | - Doe Kumsa
- Division of Biomedical Physics, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, United States Food and Drug Administration, White Oak Federal Research Center, Silver Spring, MD, United States
| | - Warren M. Grill
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States
| | - Harrison C. Walker
- Division of Movement Disorders, Department of Neurology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, United States,Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, United States
| | - Matthew D. Johnson
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States
| | - Jerrold L. Vitek
- Department of Neurology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States
| | - David Greene
- NeuroPace, Inc., Mountain View, CA, United States
| | - Daniel S. Rizzuto
- Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Dong Song
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States
| | - Theodore W. Berger
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States
| | - Robert E. Hampson
- Physiology and Pharmacology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, United States
| | - Sam A. Deadwyler
- Physiology and Pharmacology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, United States
| | - Leigh R. Hochberg
- Department of Neurology, Center for Neurotechnology and Neurorecovery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, MA, United States,Center for Neurorestoration and Neurotechnology, Rehabilitation R and D Service, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Providence, RI, United States,School of Engineering and Brown Institute for Brain Science, Brown University, Providence, RI, United States
| | - Nicholas D. Schiff
- Laboratory of Cognitive Neuromodulation, Feil Family Brain Mind Research Institute, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States
| | | | - Greg Worrell
- Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States
| | - Vineet Tiruvadi
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Emory University School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States
| | - Helen S. Mayberg
- Departments of Psychiatry, Neurology, and Radiology, Emory University School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States
| | - Joohi Jimenez-Shahed
- Parkinson's Disease Center and Movement Disorders Clinic, Department of Neurology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Pranav Nanda
- Department of Neurological Surgery, The Neurological Institute, Columbia University Herbert and Florence Irving Medical Center, Colombia University, New York, NY, United States
| | - Sameer A. Sheth
- Department of Neurological Surgery, The Neurological Institute, Columbia University Herbert and Florence Irving Medical Center, Colombia University, New York, NY, United States
| | - Robert E. Gross
- Department of Neurosurgery, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States
| | - Scott F. Lempka
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States
| | - Luming Li
- National Engineering Laboratory for Neuromodulation, School of Aerospace Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China,Precision Medicine and Healthcare Research Center, Tsinghua-Berkeley Shenzhen Institute, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China,Center of Epilepsy, Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Beijing, China
| | - Wissam Deeb
- Department of Neurology, Center for Movement Disorders and Neurorestoration, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States
| | - Michael S. Okun
- Department of Neurology, Center for Movement Disorders and Neurorestoration, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Square biphasic pulse deep brain stimulation for essential tremor: The BiP tremor study. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2017; 46:41-46. [PMID: 29102253 DOI: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2017.10.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/27/2017] [Revised: 10/02/2017] [Accepted: 10/19/2017] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Conventional deep brain stimulation (DBS) utilizes regular, high frequency pulses to treat medication-refractory symptoms in essential tremor (ET). Modifications of DBS pulse shape to achieve improved effectiveness is a promising approach. OBJECTIVES The current study assessed the safety, tolerability and effectiveness of square biphasic pulse shaping as an alternative to conventional ET DBS. METHODS This pilot study compared biphasic pulses (BiP) versus conventional DBS pulses (ClinDBS). Eleven ET subjects with clinically optimized ventralis intermedius nucleus DBS were enrolled. Objective measures were obtained over 3 h while ON BiP stimulation. RESULTS There was observed benefit in the Fahn-Tolosa Tremor Rating Scale (TRS) for BiP conditions when compared to the DBS off condition and to ClinDBS setting. Total TRS scores during the DBS OFF condition (28.5 IQR = 24.5-35.25) were significantly higher than the other time points. Following active DBS, TRS improved to (20 IQR = 13.8-24.3) at ClinDBS setting and to (16.5 IQR = 12-20.75) at the 3 h period ON BiP stimulation (p = 0.001). Accelerometer recordings revealed improvement in tremor at rest (χ2 = 16.1, p = 0.006), posture (χ2 = 15.9, p = 0.007) and with action (χ2 = 32.1, p=<0.001) when comparing median total scores at ClinDBS and OFF DBS conditions to 3 h ON BiP stimulation. There were no adverse effects and gait was not impacted. CONCLUSION BiP was safe, tolerable and effective on the tremor symptoms when tested up to 3 h. This study demonstrated the feasibility of applying a novel DBS waveform in the clinic setting. Larger prospective studies with longer clinical follow-up will be required.
Collapse
|
8
|
Clark-Price SC, Lascola KM, Carter JE, da Cunha AF, Donaldson LL, Doherty TJ, Martin-Flores M, Hofmeister EH, Keating SCJ, Mama KR, Mason DE, Posner LP, Sano H, Seddighi R, Shih AC, Weil AB, Schaeffer DJ. Assessment of agreement among diplomates of the American College of Veterinary Anesthesia and Analgesia for scoring the recovery of horses from anesthesia by use of subjective grading scales and development of a system for evaluation of the recovery of horses from anesthesia by use of accelerometry. Am J Vet Res 2017; 78:668-676. [PMID: 28541154 DOI: 10.2460/ajvr.78.6.668] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate agreement among diplomates of the American College of Veterinary Anesthesia and Analgesia for scores determined by use of a simple descriptive scale (SDS) or a composite grading scale (CGS) for quality of recovery of horses from anesthesia and to investigate use of 3-axis accelerometry (3AA) for objective evaluation of recovery. ANIMALS 12 healthy adult horses. PROCEDURES Horses were fitted with a 3AA device and then were anesthetized. Eight diplomates evaluated recovery by use of an SDS, and 7 other diplomates evaluated recovery by use of a CGS. Agreement was tested with κ and AC1 statistics for the SDS and an ANOVA for the CGS. A library of mathematical models was used to map 3AA data against CGS scores. RESULTS Agreement among diplomates using the SDS was slight (κ = 0.19; AC1 = 0.22). The CGS scores differed significantly among diplomates. Best fit of 3AA data against CGS scores yielded the following equation: RS = 9.998 × SG0.633 × ∑UG0.174, where RS is a horse's recovery score determined with 3AA, SG is acceleration of the successful attempt to stand, and ∑UG is the sum of accelerations of unsuccessful attempts to stand. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Subjective scoring of recovery of horses from anesthesia resulted in poor agreement among diplomates. Subjective scoring may lead to differences in conclusions about recovery quality; thus, there is a need for an objective scoring method. The 3AA system removed subjective bias in evaluations of recovery of horses and warrants further study.
Collapse
|
9
|
Brocker DT, Swan BD, So RQ, Turner DA, Gross RE, Grill WM. Optimized temporal pattern of brain stimulation designed by computational evolution. Sci Transl Med 2017; 9:eaah3532. [PMID: 28053151 PMCID: PMC5516784 DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aah3532] [Citation(s) in RCA: 95] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/07/2015] [Revised: 06/15/2016] [Accepted: 11/18/2016] [Indexed: 11/02/2022]
Abstract
Brain stimulation is a promising therapy for several neurological disorders, including Parkinson's disease. Stimulation parameters are selected empirically and are limited to the frequency and intensity of stimulation. We varied the temporal pattern of deep brain stimulation to ameliorate symptoms in a parkinsonian animal model and in humans with Parkinson's disease. We used model-based computational evolution to optimize the stimulation pattern. The optimized pattern produced symptom relief comparable to that from standard high-frequency stimulation (a constant rate of 130 or 185 Hz) and outperformed frequency-matched standard stimulation in a parkinsonian rat model and in patients. Both optimized and standard high-frequency stimulation suppressed abnormal oscillatory activity in the basal ganglia of rats and humans. The results illustrate the utility of model-based computational evolution of temporal patterns to increase the efficiency of brain stimulation in treating Parkinson's disease and thereby reduce the energy required for successful treatment below that of current brain stimulation paradigms.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David T Brocker
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA
| | - Brandon D Swan
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA
| | - Rosa Q So
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA
| | - Dennis A Turner
- Department of Neurobiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA
- Department of Neurosurgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA
| | - Robert E Gross
- Departments of Neurosurgery and Neurology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA
- Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA
| | - Warren M Grill
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.
- Department of Neurobiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Subthalamic beta oscillations are attenuated after withdrawal of chronic high frequency neurostimulation in Parkinson's disease. Neurobiol Dis 2016; 96:22-30. [PMID: 27553876 DOI: 10.1016/j.nbd.2016.08.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 66] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/14/2016] [Revised: 07/27/2016] [Accepted: 08/16/2016] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Subthalamic nucleus (STN) local field potential (LFP) recordings demonstrate beta (13-30Hz) band oscillations in Parkinson's disease (PD) defined as elevations of spectral power. The amount of attenuation of beta band power on therapeutic levels of high frequency (HF) deep brain stimulation (DBS) and/or dopaminergic medication has been correlated with the degree of improvement in bradykinesia and rigidity from the therapy, which has led to the suggestion that elevated beta band power is a marker of PD motor disability. A fundamental question has not been answered: whether there is a prolonged attenuation of beta band power after withdrawal of chronic HF DBS and whether this is related to a lack of progression or even improvement in the underlying motor disability. Until now, in human PD subjects, STN LFP recordings were only attainable in the peri-operative period and after short periods of stimulation. For the first time, using an investigational, implanted sensing neurostimulator (Activa® PC+S, Medtronic, Inc.), STN LFPs and motor disability were recorded/assessed after withdrawal of chronic (6 and 12month) HF DBS in freely moving PD subjects. Beta band power was similar within 14s and 60min after stimulation was withdrawn, suggesting that "off therapy" experiments can be conducted almost immediately after stimulation is turned off. After withdrawal of 6 and 12months of STN DBS, beta band power was significantly lower (P<0.05 at 6 and 12months) and off therapy UPDRS scores were better (P<0.05 at 12months) compared to before DBS was started. The attenuation in beta band power was correlated with improvement in motor disability scores (P<0.05). These findings were supported by evidence of a gradual increase in beta band power in two unstimulated STNs after 24months and could not be explained by changes in lead impedance. This suggests that chronic HF DBS exerts long-term plasticity in the sensorimotor network, which may contribute to a lack of progression in underlying motor disability in PD.
Collapse
|
11
|
Rossi PJ, Gunduz A, Judy J, Wilson L, Machado A, Giordano JJ, Elias WJ, Rossi MA, Butson CL, Fox MD, McIntyre CC, Pouratian N, Swann NC, de Hemptinne C, Gross RE, Chizeck HJ, Tagliati M, Lozano AM, Goodman W, Langevin JP, Alterman RL, Akbar U, Gerhardt GA, Grill WM, Hallett M, Herrington T, Herron J, van Horne C, Kopell BH, Lang AE, Lungu C, Martinez-Ramirez D, Mogilner AY, Molina R, Opri E, Otto KJ, Oweiss KG, Pathak Y, Shukla A, Shute J, Sheth SA, Shih LC, Steinke GK, Tröster AI, Vanegas N, Zaghloul KA, Cendejas-Zaragoza L, Verhagen L, Foote KD, Okun MS. Proceedings of the Third Annual Deep Brain Stimulation Think Tank: A Review of Emerging Issues and Technologies. Front Neurosci 2016; 10:119. [PMID: 27092042 PMCID: PMC4821860 DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2016.00119] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/11/2015] [Accepted: 03/11/2016] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
The proceedings of the 3rd Annual Deep Brain Stimulation Think Tank summarize the most contemporary clinical, electrophysiological, imaging, and computational work on DBS for the treatment of neurological and neuropsychiatric disease. Significant innovations of the past year are emphasized. The Think Tank's contributors represent a unique multidisciplinary ensemble of expert neurologists, neurosurgeons, neuropsychologists, psychiatrists, scientists, engineers, and members of industry. Presentations and discussions covered a broad range of topics, including policy and advocacy considerations for the future of DBS, connectomic approaches to DBS targeting, developments in electrophysiology and related strides toward responsive DBS systems, and recent developments in sensor and device technologies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P Justin Rossi
- Department of Neuroscience, Center for Movement Disorders and Neurorestoration, University of Florida Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Aysegul Gunduz
- Department of Neuroscience, Center for Movement Disorders and Neurorestoration, University of Florida Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Jack Judy
- Department of Neuroscience, Center for Movement Disorders and Neurorestoration, University of Florida Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Linda Wilson
- Formerly affiliated with the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors (ITRS) Washington, USA
| | - Andre Machado
- Neurological Institute Cleveland Clinic Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - James J Giordano
- Neuroethics Studies Program, Department of Neurology, Georgetown University Medical Center Washington, DC, USA
| | - W Jeff Elias
- Neurological Surgery and Neurology, Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery, Department of Neurosurgery, University of Virginia Health Science Center Charlottesville, VA, USA
| | - Marvin A Rossi
- Department of Neurology, Rush University Medical Center Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Christopher L Butson
- Scientific Computing and Imaging Institute, University of Utah Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Michael D Fox
- Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School Boston, MA, USA
| | - Cameron C McIntyre
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Nader Pouratian
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Nicole C Swann
- University of California, San Francisco San Francisco, CA, USA
| | | | | | - Howard J Chizeck
- Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Washington Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Michele Tagliati
- Movement Disorders Program, Department of Neurology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Andres M Lozano
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Toronto Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Wayne Goodman
- The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York, NY, USA
| | | | - Ron L Alterman
- Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School Boston, MA, USA
| | - Umer Akbar
- Department of Neurology, Alpert Medical School, Brown University Providence, RI, USA
| | | | - Warren M Grill
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University Durham, NC, USA
| | - Mark Hallett
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Todd Herrington
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School Boston, MA, USA
| | - Jeffrey Herron
- Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Washington Seattle, WA, USA
| | | | - Brian H Kopell
- The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York, NY, USA
| | - Anthony E Lang
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Toronto Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Codrin Lungu
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Daniel Martinez-Ramirez
- Department of Neuroscience, Center for Movement Disorders and Neurorestoration, University of Florida Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Alon Y Mogilner
- Department of Neurosurgery-Center for Neuromodulation, NYU Langone Medical Center New York, NY, USA
| | - Rene Molina
- Department of Neuroscience, Center for Movement Disorders and Neurorestoration, University of Florida Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Enrico Opri
- Department of Neuroscience, Center for Movement Disorders and Neurorestoration, University of Florida Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Kevin J Otto
- Department of Neuroscience, Center for Movement Disorders and Neurorestoration, University of Florida Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Karim G Oweiss
- Department of Neuroscience, Center for Movement Disorders and Neurorestoration, University of Florida Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Yagna Pathak
- Neurological Institute, Columbia University Medical Center New York, NY, USA
| | - Aparna Shukla
- Department of Neuroscience, Center for Movement Disorders and Neurorestoration, University of Florida Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Jonathan Shute
- Department of Neuroscience, Center for Movement Disorders and Neurorestoration, University of Florida Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Sameer A Sheth
- Neurological Institute, Columbia University Medical Center New York, NY, USA
| | - Ludy C Shih
- Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School Boston, MA, USA
| | | | - Alexander I Tröster
- Department of Clinical Neuropsychology, Barrow Neurological Institute Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - Nora Vanegas
- Neurological Institute, Columbia University Medical Center New York, NY, USA
| | - Kareem A Zaghloul
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health Bethesda, MD, USA
| | | | - Leonard Verhagen
- Department of Neurology, Rush University Medical Center Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Kelly D Foote
- Department of Neuroscience, Center for Movement Disorders and Neurorestoration, University of Florida Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Michael S Okun
- Department of Neuroscience, Center for Movement Disorders and Neurorestoration, University of Florida Gainesville, FL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
De Jesus S, Almeida L, Peng-Chen Z, Okun MS, Hess CW. Novel targets and stimulation paradigms for deep brain stimulation. Expert Rev Neurother 2015; 15:1067-80. [DOI: 10.1586/14737175.2015.1083421] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
|
13
|
Swan BD, Brocker DT, Hilliard JD, Tatter SB, Gross RE, Turner DA, Grill WM. Short pauses in thalamic deep brain stimulation promote tremor and neuronal bursting. Clin Neurophysiol 2015; 127:1551-1559. [PMID: 26330131 DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2015.07.034] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/15/2015] [Revised: 07/01/2015] [Accepted: 07/17/2015] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE We conducted intraoperative measurements of tremor during DBS containing short pauses (⩽50 ms) to determine if there is a minimum pause duration that preserves tremor suppression. METHODS Nine subjects with ET and thalamic DBS participated during IPG replacement surgery. Patterns of DBS included regular 130 Hz stimulation interrupted by 0, 15, 25 or 50 ms pauses. The same patterns were applied to a model of the thalamic network to quantify effects of pauses on activity of model neurons. RESULTS All patterns of DBS decreased tremor relative to 'off'. Patterns with pauses generated less tremor reduction than regular high frequency DBS. The model revealed that rhythmic burst-driver inputs to thalamus were masked during DBS, but pauses in stimulation allowed propagation of bursting activity. The mean firing rate of bursting-type model neurons as well as the firing pattern entropy of model neurons were both strongly correlated with tremor power across stimulation conditions. CONCLUSIONS The temporal pattern of stimulation influences the efficacy of thalamic DBS. Pauses in stimulation resulted in decreased tremor suppression indicating that masking of pathological bursting is a mechanism of thalamic DBS for tremor. SIGNIFICANCE Pauses in stimulation decreased the efficacy of open-loop DBS for suppression of tremor.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brandon D Swan
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - David T Brocker
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Justin D Hilliard
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Stephen B Tatter
- Department of Neurosurgery, Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, NC, USA
| | - Robert E Gross
- Department of Neurosurgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA; Department of Neurology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Dennis A Turner
- Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA; Department of Neurobiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Warren M Grill
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA; Department of Neurobiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA; Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Williams NR, Taylor JJ, Lamb K, Hanlon CA, Short EB, George MS. Role of functional imaging in the development and refinement of invasive neuromodulation for psychiatric disorders. World J Radiol 2014; 6:756-778. [PMID: 25349661 PMCID: PMC4209423 DOI: 10.4329/wjr.v6.i10.756] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/03/2014] [Revised: 05/17/2014] [Accepted: 08/31/2014] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is emerging as a powerful tool for the alleviation of targeted symptoms in treatment-resistant neuropsychiatric disorders. Despite the expanding use of neuropsychiatric DBS, the mechanisms responsible for its effects are only starting to be elucidated. Several modalities such as quantitative electroencephalography as well a intraoperative recordings have been utilized to attempt to understand the underpinnings of this new treatment modality, but functional imaging appears to offer several unique advantages. Functional imaging techniques like positron emission tomography, single photon emission computed tomography and functional magnetic resonance imaging have been used to examine the effects of focal DBS on activity in a distributed neural network. These investigations are critical for advancing the field of invasive neuromodulation in a safe and effective manner, particularly in terms of defining the neuroanatomical targets and refining the stimulation protocols. The purpose of this review is to summarize the current functional neuroimaging findings from neuropsychiatric DBS implantation for three disorders: treatment-resistant depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and Tourette syndrome. All of the major targets will be discussed (Nucleus accumbens, anterior limb of internal capsule, subcallosal cingulate, Subthalamic nucleus, Centromedial nucleus of the thalamus-Parafasicular complex, frontal pole, and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex). We will also address some apparent inconsistencies within this literature, and suggest potential future directions for this promising area.
Collapse
|
15
|
Kent AR, Swan BD, Brocker DT, Turner DA, Gross RE, Grill WM. Measurement of evoked potentials during thalamic deep brain stimulation. Brain Stimul 2014; 8:42-56. [PMID: 25457213 DOI: 10.1016/j.brs.2014.09.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/23/2014] [Revised: 09/21/2014] [Accepted: 09/26/2014] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Deep brain stimulation (DBS) treats the symptoms of several movement disorders, but optimal selection of stimulation parameters remains a challenge. The evoked compound action potential (ECAP) reflects synchronized neural activation near the DBS lead, and may be useful for feedback control and automatic adjustment of stimulation parameters in closed-loop DBS systems. OBJECTIVES Determine the feasibility of recording ECAPs in the clinical setting, understand the neural origin of the ECAP and sources of any stimulus artifact, and correlate ECAP characteristics with motor symptoms. METHODS The ECAP and tremor response were measured simultaneously during intraoperative studies of thalamic DBS, conducted in patients who were either undergoing surgery for initial lead implantation or replacement of their internal pulse generator. RESULTS There was large subject-to-subject variation in stimulus artifact amplitude, which model-based analysis suggested may have been caused by glial encapsulation of the lead, resulting in imbalances in the tissue impedance between the contacts. ECAP recordings obtained from both acute and chronically implanted electrodes revealed that specific phase characteristics of the signal varied systematically with stimulation parameters. Further, a trend was observed in some patients between the energy of the initial negative and positive ECAP phases, as well as secondary phases, and changes in tremor from baseline. A computational model of thalamic DBS indicated that direct cerebellothalamic fiber activation dominated the clinically measured ECAP, suggesting that excitation of these fibers is critical in DBS therapy. CONCLUSIONS This work demonstrated that ECAPs can be recorded in the clinical setting and may provide a surrogate feedback control signal for automatic adjustment of stimulation parameters to reduce tremor amplitude.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander R Kent
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Brandon D Swan
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - David T Brocker
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Dennis A Turner
- Department of Neurobiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA; Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Robert E Gross
- Department of Neurosurgery, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA; Department of Neurology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA; Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Warren M Grill
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Department of Neurobiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA; Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA; Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Williams NR, Foote KD, Okun MS. STN vs. GPi Deep Brain Stimulation: Translating the Rematch into Clinical Practice. Mov Disord Clin Pract 2014; 1:24-35. [PMID: 24779023 DOI: 10.1002/mdc3.12004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 95] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/29/2022] Open
Abstract
When formulating a deep brain stimulation (DBS) treatment plan for a patient with Parkinson's disease (PD), two critical questions should be addressed: 1- Which brain target should be chosen to optimize this patient's outcome? and 2- Should this patient's DBS operation be unilateral or bilateral? Over the past two decades, two targets have emerged as leading contenders for PD DBS; the subthalamic nucleus (STN) and the globus pallidus internus (GPi). While the GPi target does have a following, most centers have uniformly employed bilateral STN DBS for all Parkinson's disease cases (Figure 1). This bilateral STN "one-size-fits-all" approach was challenged by an editorial entitled "STN vs. GPi: The Rematch," which appeared in the Archives of Neurology in 2005. Since 2005, a series of well designed clinical trials and follow-up studies have addressed the question as to whether a more tailored approach to DBS therapy might improve overall outcomes. Such a tailored approach would include the options of targeting the GPi, or choosing a unilateral operation. The results of the STN vs. GPi 'rematch' studies support the conclusion that bilateral STN DBS may not be the best option for every Parkinson's disease surgical patient. Off period motor symptoms and tremor improve in both targets, and with either unilateral or bilateral stimulation. Advantages of the STN target include more medication reduction, less frequent battery changes, and a more favorable economic profile. Advantages of GPi include more robust dyskinesia suppression, easier programming, and greater flexibility in adjusting medications. In cases where unilateral stimulation is anticipated, the data favor GPi DBS. This review summarizes the accumulated evidence regarding the use of bilateral vs. unilateral DBS and the selection of STN vs. GPi DBS, including definite and possible advantages of different targets and approaches. Based on this evidence, a more patient-tailored, symptom specific approach will be proposed to optimize outcomes of PD DBS therapy. Finally, the importance of an interdisciplinary care team for screening and effective management of DBS patients will be reaffirmed. Interdisciplinary teams can facilitate the proposed patient-specific DBS treatment planning and provide a more thorough analysis of the risk-benefit ratio for each patient.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nolan R Williams
- Department of Psychiatry, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston SC ; Department of Neurosciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston SC
| | - Kelly D Foote
- Departments of Neurology and Neurosurgery, University of Florida Center for Movement Disorders and Neurorestoration and the McKnight Brain Institute, UF Health College of Medicine, Gainesville FL
| | - Michael S Okun
- Departments of Neurology and Neurosurgery, University of Florida Center for Movement Disorders and Neurorestoration and the McKnight Brain Institute, UF Health College of Medicine, Gainesville FL
| |
Collapse
|