Single-Center Complication Analysis Associated with Surgical Replacement of Implantable Pulse Generators in Deep Brain Stimulation

Surgical and Hardware-Related Adverse Events of Deep Brain Stimulation: A Ten-Year Single-Center Experience

INTRODUCTION

Although deep brain stimulation (DBS) is effective for treating a number of neurological and psychiatric indications, surgical and hardware-related adverse events (AEs) can occur that affect quality of life. This study aimed to give an overview of the nature and frequency of those AEs in our center and to describe the way they were managed. Furthermore, an attempt was made at identifying possible risk factors for AEs to inform possible future preventive measures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients undergoing DBS-related procedures between January 2011 and July 2020 were retrospectively analyzed to inventory AEs. The mean follow-up time was 43 ± 31 months. Univariate logistic regression analysis was used to assess the predictive value of selected demographic and clinical variables.

RESULTS

From January 2011 to July 2020, 508 DBS-related procedures were performed including 201 implantations of brain electrodes in 200 patients and 307 implantable pulse generator (IPG) replacements in 142 patients. Surgical or hardware-related AEs following initial implantation affected 40 of 200 patients (20%) and resolved without permanent sequelae in all instances. The most frequent AEs were surgical site infections (SSIs) (9.95%, 20/201) and wire tethering (2.49%, 5/201), followed by hardware failure (1.99%, 4/201), skin erosion (1.0%, 2/201), pain (0.5%, 1/201), lead migration (0.52%, 2/386 electrode sites), and hematoma (0.52%, 2/386 electrode sites). The overall rate of AEs for IPG replacement was 5.6% (17/305). No surgical, ie, staged or nonstaged, electrode fixation, or patient-related risk factors were identified for SSI or wire tethering.

CONCLUSIONS

Major AEs including intracranial surgery-related AEs or AEs requiring surgical removal or revision of hardware are rare. In particular, aggressive treatment is required in SSIs involving multiple sites or when Staphylococcus aureus is identified. For future benchmarking, the development of a uniform reporting system for surgical and hardware-related AEs in DBS surgery would be useful.

Submammary placement of neurostimulator devices: broadening the spectrum of cosmetic techniques

Deep brain neurostimulators (DBS) have enabled thousands of individuals to overcome movement disorders, thus offering them a new chance for social integration while enhancing their self-esteem. A classic DBS consists of a central implantable pulse generator (IPG) and its respective wires and leads that extend to the scalp to reach the brain. The classic positioning of the generator is currently subcutaneous, usually just below the clavicle or in the abdominal wall. As DBS systems are of a substantial size, this subcutaneous placement leads to unsightly and visible devices, particularly in thin patients. We report two cases of female patients who benefited from our technique to hide the IPG under the breast parenchyma. IPGs were placed through an inframammary incision in a subglandular pocket, similar to the technique used for implant-based breast augmentation. In the first case, the devices were implanted in a subglandular pocket and replaced 5 years later due to battery life limitation. In the second case, the devices were replaced from a subclavicular position to a submammary one. No major or minor complications were observed. Both patients reported an excellent level of satisfaction with the aesthetic and functional outcome. Despite the significant quality of life improvement of patients with DBS, the ideal implantation of the generator should also take into consideration the comfort and cosmetic aspects. Our approach has the potential to markedly improve the aesthetic outcome of such an intervention.

Level of evidence: Level V, therapeutic study.