Gong S, Tao Y, Jin H, Sun X, Liu Y, Wang S, Xu M, Yang X, Wang Y, Yuan L, Song W. Assessment of Deep Brain Stimulation Implantation Surgery: A Practical Scale.
World Neurosurg 2020;
134:e1121-9. [PMID:
31786379 DOI:
10.1016/j.wneu.2019.11.117]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/10/2019] [Revised: 11/19/2019] [Accepted: 11/20/2019] [Indexed: 01/09/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Patients requiring deep brain stimulation (DBS) will undergo extensive preoperative and postoperative evaluations. However, the field lacks a robust scoring system for quantifying the outcomes of DBS surgery. We sought to determine whether a practical scale could assess the outcomes of DBS surgery and the clinical significance.
METHODS
A retrospective study was performed of the data from 150 patients who had undergone DBS from February 2017 to February 2019. An independence analysis and multivariate testing were used to identify significant independent predictors. The scale scores were computed by summing across the weighted predictors. The correlation between the scale scores and the intraoperative electrophysiological signal length (IESL), DBS power-on voltage, improvement rate in the unified Parkinson disease rating scale (UPDRS) and UPDRS part III (UPDRS III) scores was analyzed. Receiver operating characteristics curve analysis was used to quantify the discriminative capacity of the scale for predicting the prognosis.
RESULTS
Listwise exclusion of patients with incomplete data sets yielded a final sample of 130 patients with Parkinson disease who had undergone bilateral DBS. Multivariate testing identified 3 independent predictors of the prognosis, including electrode implantation duration, postoperative pneumocephalus volume, and electrode fusion error. The scale scores correlated significantly with the subthalamic nucleus DBS power-on voltage (r = -0.4063; P < 0.0001), globus pallidus internus DBS power-on voltage (r = -0.4723; P = 0.0014), and improvement rate of the UPDRS (r = 0.3490; P < 0.0001) and UPDRS III (r = 0.6623; P < 0.0001) scores. However, the scale scores did not significantly correlate with the subthalamic nucleus IESL and globus pallidus internus IESL. Receiver operating characteristics curve analysis revealed impressive outcome discrimination for the UPDRS and UPDRS III scores (UPDRS: area under the curve, 0.62, P = 0.0219; UPDRS III: area under the curve, 0.85, P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS
We have introduced a novel practical scale capable of assessing the outcomes of DBS surgery and predicting the prognosis of patients after DBS surgery.
Collapse