Deep Brain Stimulation Post Failed Vagal Nerve Stimulation

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Deep Brain Stimulation ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Vagal Nerve ◽  
Vagal Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Deep Brain

Neurostimulation

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott Aaronson ◽  
Paul Croarkin
Keyword(s):  
Deep Brain Stimulation ◽  
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Electroconvulsive Therapy ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Vagal Nerve ◽  
Vagal Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Psychiatric Practice ◽  
Deep Brain

Neurostimulation modalities in psychiatric practice and research efforts use magnetic and electric fields to modulate neuronal functioning. Physicians have used these modalities since ancient history, but most modern brain stimulation treatments developed after the inception electroconvulsive therapy in 1937. Noninvasive brain stimulation generally refers to treatments that do not require surgery, such as electroconvulsive therapy, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, and transcranial current stimulation. Conversely, deep brain stimulation and vagal nerve stimulation are the two most researched invasive brain stimulation modalities for psychiatric disorders. Treatment with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation has been shown to be effective for the treatment of resistant major depressive disorders but is less rapid acting and may be optimal for a different patient population as compared to electroconvulsive therapy. Research focused on transcranial direct current stimulation continues to expand, but its role in clinical psychiatric practice is currently not well defined. Despite mixed and, in some cases, disappointing results, invasive brain stimulation techniques such as deep brain stimulation and vagal nerve stimulation will likely continue to have an important role for certain treatment-resistant populations in psychiatric practice. This review examines the development, basic physiologic mechanisms, and evidence base of neurostimulation modalities in psychiatry.   This review contains 4 figures, 6 tables and 38 references Key Words: deep brain stimulation, invasive, neurostimulation, noninvasive, transcranial direct current stimulation, transcranial electrical stimulation, transcranial magnetic stimulation, treatment-resistant depression, vagal nerve stimulation

scholarly journals Neurosurgery for mental disorder

2004 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 189-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Christmas ◽  
Colin Morrison ◽  
Muftah S. Eljamel ◽  
Keith Matthews
Keyword(s):  
Deep Brain Stimulation ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Mental Disorder ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Vagus Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Neurosurgical Procedures ◽  
Historical Overview ◽  
Non Destructive ◽  
Deep Brain

The authors review contemporary indications for neurosurgical interventions in the management of chronic and refractory mental disorder, the procedures involved, their efficacy and known adverse effects. These data are presented within the context of a brief historical overview of the use of neurosurgery for mental disorder. In addition to a consideration of neurosurgical procedures that rely on the creation of putative therapeutic lesions, we also review two novel, non-destructive neurosurgical electrostimulation treatments that may represent viable alternatives to conventional ablative neurosurgery: vagus nerve stimulation and deep brain stimulation.

scholarly journals Occipital nerve stimulation and deep brain stimulation for refractory cluster headache: a prospective analysis of efficacy over time

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Juan Ángel Aibar-Durán ◽  
María Jesús Álvarez Holzapfel ◽  
Rodrigo Rodríguez Rodríguez ◽  
Robert Belvis Nieto ◽  
Carles Roig Arnall ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Deep Brain Stimulation ◽  
Cluster Headache ◽  
Clinical Response ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Occipital Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Occipital Nerve ◽  
Over Time ◽  
Deep Brain

OBJECTIVEOccipital nerve stimulation (ONS) and deep brain stimulation (DBS) are widely used surgical treatments for chronic refractory cluster headache (CH). However, there is little literature regarding long-term follow-up of these treatments.METHODSThe authors describe two prospective cohorts of patients with refractory CH treated with ONS and DBS and compare preoperative to postoperative status at 6 and 12 months after the surgery and at final follow-up. Efficacy analysis using objective and subjective variables is reported, as well as medication reduction and complications.RESULTSThe ONS group consisted of 13 men and 4 women, with a median age of 44 years (range 31–61 years). The median number of attacks per week (NAw) before surgery was 28 (range 7–70), and the median follow-up duration was 48 months. The DBS group comprised 5 men and 2 women, with a median age of 50 years (range 29–64 years). The median NAw before surgery was 56 (range 14–140), and the median follow-up was 36 months. The NAw and visual analog scale score were significantly reduced for the ONS and DBS groups after surgery. However, while all the patients from the DBS group were considered responders at final follow-up, with more than 85% being satisfied with the treatment, approximately 29% of initial responders to ONS became resistant by the final follow-up (p = 0.0253).CONCLUSIONSONS is initially effective as a treatment for refractory CH, although a trend toward loss of efficacy was observed. No clear predictors of good clinical response were found in the present study. Conversely, DBS appears to be effective and provide a more stable clinical response over time with an acceptable rate of surgical complications.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document