[Deep brain stimulation in neurological and psychiatric diseases]

Die invasive Hirnstimulation (tiefe Hirnstimulation [THS], „deep brain stimulation“ [DBS]) ist mittlerweile ein etabliertes Therapieverfahren bei einer Reihe neurologischer Erkrankungen insbesondere Bewegungsstörungen. Die Anzahl der mit einer THS versorgten Patienten steigt stetig, die technische Entwicklung der THS-Systeme schreitet voran und neue Indikationen werden aktuell in Studien überprüft. Im folgenden Beitrag soll ein Überblick über die aktuellen Indikationen und ein Ausblick auf zukünftige Entwicklungen der THS bei Bewegungsstörungen und psychiatrischen Erkrankungen gegeben werden.

Probabilistic mapping of the antidystonic effect of pallidal neurostimulation: a multicentre imaging study

Deep brain stimulation of the internal globus pallidus is a highly effective and established therapy for primary generalized and cervical dystonia, but therapeutic success is compromised by a non-responder rate of up to 25%, even in carefully-selected groups. Variability in electrode placement and inappropriate stimulation settings may account for a large proportion of this outcome variability. Here, we present probabilistic mapping data on a large cohort of patients collected from several European centres to resolve the optimal stimulation volume within the pallidal region. A total of 105 dystonia patients with pallidal deep brain stimulation were enrolled and 87 datasets (43 with cervical dystonia and 44 with generalized dystonia) were included into the subsequent 'normative brain' analysis. The average improvement of dystonia motor score was 50.5 ± 30.9% in cervical and 58.2 ± 48.8% in generalized dystonia, while 19.5% of patients did not respond to treatment (<25% benefit). We defined probabilistic maps of anti-dystonic effects by aggregating individual electrode locations and volumes of tissue activated (VTA) in normative atlas space and ranking voxel-wise for outcome distribution. We found a significant relation between motor outcome and the stimulation volume, but not the electrode location per se. The highest probability of stimulation induced motor benefit was found in a small volume covering the ventroposterior globus pallidus internus and adjacent subpallidal white matter. We then used the aggregated VTA-based outcome maps to rate patient individual VTAs and trained a linear regression model to predict individual outcomes. The prediction model showed robustness between the predicted and observed clinical improvement, with an r2 of 0.294 (P < 0.0001). The predictions deviated on average by 16.9 ± 11.6 % from observed dystonia improvements. For example, if a patient improved by 65%, the model would predict an improvement between 49% and 81%. Results were validated in an independent cohort of 10 dystonia patients, where prediction and observed benefit had a correlation of r2 = 0.52 (P = 0.02) and a mean prediction error of 10.3% (±8.9). These results emphasize the potential of probabilistic outcome brain mapping in refining the optimal therapeutic volume for pallidal neurostimulation and advancing computer-assisted planning and programming of deep brain stimulation.

Virtual placement of posterior C1-C2 transarticular screw fixation

We wanted to evaluate how often safe and effective posterior C1-C2 transarticular screw placement is realizable when it is performed according to guidelines given in the literature. In 50 adult patients, computerized tomography scan data from C0 to C3 were transformed into a 3D spine model. Virtually, bilateral screws were placed from the medial third of the C2-C3 facet joint towards the rim of the C1 anterior arc parallel to midline. Three categories of virtual screw position were rated: optimal (virtual screw inside the C2 pars interarticularis, transversing the middle third of the atlantoaxial joint, and sparing the vertebral artery canal), suboptimal (virtual screw violating the C2 pars interarticularis, and/or transversing the lower or upper third of the C1-C2 joint, and sparing vertebral artery canal), and unacceptable (virtual screw breaching the vertebral artery canal). Optimal placement was seen in 74, suboptimal placement in 11, and unacceptable locations in 15 sites. We conclude that due to the variability of the anatomy of the upper cervical spine, optimal transarticular C1-C2 screw placement is not possible in up to 26%, and even hazardous in up to 15%.