Deep brain stimulation for the treatment of cerebral palsy: A review

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has been used as a safe and effective neuromodulation technique for treatment of various diseases. A large number of patients suffering from movement disorders such as dyskinesia may benefit from DBS. Cerebral palsy (CP) is a group of permanent disorders mainly involving motor impairment, and medical interventions are usually unsatisfactory or temporarily active, especially for dyskinetic CP. DBS may be another approach to the treatment of CP. In this review we discuss the targets for DBS and the mechanisms of action for the treatment of CP, and focus on presurgical assessment, efficacy for dystonia and other symptoms, safety, and risks.

Download Full-text

Mechanisms and the Current State of Deep Brain Stimulation in Neuropsychiatry

CNS Spectrums ◽

10.1017/s109285290001899x ◽

2003 ◽

Vol 8 (7) ◽

pp. 522-526 ◽

Cited By ~ 43

Author(s):

Benjamin D. Greenberg ◽

Ali R. Rezai

Keyword(s):

Deep Brain Stimulation ◽

Brain Stimulation ◽

Movement Disorders ◽

Mechanisms Of Action ◽

Therapeutic Effects ◽

Current State ◽

Investigational Treatment ◽

Preclinical And Clinical Studies ◽

The Brain ◽

Deep Brain

ABSTRACTDeep brain stimulation (DBS) is established as a therapy for movement disorders, and it is an investigational treatment in other neurologic conditions. DBS precisely targets neuroanatomical targets deep within the brain that are proposed to be centrally involved in the pathophysiology of some neuropsychiatric illnesses. DBS is nonablative, offering the advantages of reversibility and adjustability. This might permit therapeutic effectiveness to be enhanced or side effects to be minimized. Preclinical and clinical studies have shown effects of DBS locally, at the stimulation target, and at a distance, via actions on fibers of passage or across synapses. Although its mechanisms of action are not fully elucidated, several effects have been proposed to underlie the therapeutic effects of DBS in movement disorders, and potentially in other conditions as well. The mechanisms of action of DBS are the focus of active investigation in a number of clinical and preclinical laboratories. As in severe movement disorders, DBS may offer a degree of hope for patients with intractable neuropsychiatric illness. It is already clear that research intended to realize this potential will require a very considerable commitment of resources, energy, and time across disciplines including psychiatry, neurosurgery, neurology, neuropsychology, bioengineering, and bioethics. These investigations should proceed cautiously.

Download Full-text

Deep brain stimulation: practical insights and common queries

Practical Neurology ◽

10.1136/practneurol-2019-002275 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 19 (6) ◽

pp. 502-507 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Fahd Baig ◽

Thomas Robb ◽

Lucy Mooney ◽

Caroline Robbins ◽

Caroline Norris ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Deep Brain Stimulation ◽

Clinical Application ◽

Brain Stimulation ◽

Movement Disorders ◽

Secondary Care ◽

Number Of Patients ◽

Device Manufacturer ◽

Deep Brain

The number of patients with deep brain stimulation (DBS) devices implanted is increasing. Although practices vary between centres, patients are typically given training and information from their DBS nurse or clinician, as well as a comprehensive device manual and contact details for their device manufacturer. However, for the lifetime of a patient with a DBS system, most of their secondary care often occurs in a centre without a co-located DBS service. The local neurologist is often asked pragmatic questions regarding the do’s and don’ts for patients with DBS systems. While a DBS centre or device manufacturer can provide advice, we thought that it will be helpful to outline the overall management of DBS for movement disorders and the approach to commonly raised questions. We describe briefly the clinical application of DBS and discuss common scenarios where there are possible compatibility issues around the device.

Download Full-text

The Effect of Deep Brain Stimulation for Movement Disorders on Emotions

PsycEXTRA Dataset ◽

10.1037/e626972012-165 ◽

2008 ◽

Author(s):

Jonathan D. Richards ◽

Paul M. Wilson ◽

Pennie S. Seibert ◽

Carin M. Patterson ◽

Caitlin C. Otto ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Deep Brain Stimulation ◽

Brain Stimulation ◽

Movement Disorders ◽

Deep Brain

Download Full-text

Reoperation for device infection and erosion following deep brain stimulation implantable pulse generator placement

Journal of Neurosurgery ◽

10.3171/2019.3.jns183023 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 133 (2) ◽

pp. 403-410 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Travis J. Atchley ◽

Nicholas M. B. Laskay ◽

Brandon A. Sherrod ◽

A. K. M. Fazlur Rahman ◽

Harrison C. Walker ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Logistic Regression ◽

Deep Brain Stimulation ◽

Brain Stimulation ◽

Movement Disorders ◽

Pulse Generator ◽

Rank Test ◽

Implantable Pulse Generator ◽

Device Infection ◽

Deep Brain

OBJECTIVEInfection and erosion following implantable pulse generator (IPG) placement are associated with morbidity and cost for patients with deep brain stimulation (DBS) systems. Here, the authors provide a detailed characterization of infection and erosion events in a large cohort that underwent DBS surgery for movement disorders.METHODSThe authors retrospectively reviewed consecutive IPG placements and replacements in patients who had undergone DBS surgery for movement disorders at the University of Alabama at Birmingham between 2013 and 2016. IPG procedures occurring before 2013 in these patients were also captured. Descriptive statistics, survival analyses, and logistic regression were performed using generalized linear mixed effects models to examine risk factors for the primary outcomes of interest: infection within 1 year or erosion within 2 years of IPG placement.RESULTSIn the study period, 384 patients underwent a total of 995 IPG procedures (46.4% were initial placements) and had a median follow-up of 2.9 years. Reoperation for infection occurred after 27 procedures (2.7%) in 21 patients (5.5%). No difference in the infection rate was observed for initial placement versus replacement (p = 0.838). Reoperation for erosion occurred after 16 procedures (1.6%) in 15 patients (3.9%). Median time to reoperation for infection and erosion was 51 days (IQR 24–129 days) and 149 days (IQR 112–285 days), respectively. Four patients with infection (19.0%) developed a second infection requiring a same-side reoperation, two of whom developed a third infection. Intraoperative vancomycin powder was used in 158 cases (15.9%) and did not decrease the infection risk (infected: 3.2% with vancomycin vs 2.6% without, p = 0.922, log-rank test). On logistic regression, a previous infection increased the risk for infection (OR 35.0, 95% CI 7.9–156.2, p < 0.0001) and a lower patient BMI was a risk factor for erosion (BMI ≤ 24 kg/m2: OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.1–8.6, p = 0.03).CONCLUSIONSIPG-related infection and erosion following DBS surgery are uncommon but clinically significant events. Their respective timelines and risk factors suggest different etiologies and thus different potential corrective procedures.

Download Full-text