scholarly journals Intraoperative test stimulation versus stereotactic accuracy as a surgical end point: a comparison of essential tremor outcomes after ventral intermediate nucleus deep brain stimulation

2018 ◽  
Vol 129 (2) ◽  
pp. 290-298 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tsinsue Chen ◽  
Zaman Mirzadeh ◽  
Kristina M. Chapple ◽  
Margaret Lambert ◽  
Virgilio G. H. Evidente ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Deep Brain Stimulation ◽  
Essential Tremor ◽  
Conscious Sedation ◽  
Test Stimulation ◽  
Ventral Intermediate Nucleus ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Intraoperative Test ◽  
Deep Brain

OBJECTIVEVentral intermediate nucleus deep brain stimulation (DBS) for essential tremor is traditionally performed with intraoperative test stimulation and conscious sedation, without general anesthesia (GA). Recently, the authors reported retrospective data on 17 patients undergoing DBS after induction of GA with standardized anatomical coordinates on T1-weighted MRI sequences used for indirect targeting. Here, they compare prospectively collected data from essential tremor patients undergoing DBS both with GA and without GA (non-GA).METHODSClinical outcomes were prospectively collected at baseline and 3-month follow-up for patients undergoing DBS surgery performed by a single surgeon. Stereotactic, euclidean, and radial errors of lead placement were calculated. Functional (activities of daily living), quality of life (Quality of Life in Essential Tremor [QUEST] questionnaire), and tremor severity outcomes were compared between groups.RESULTSFifty-six patients underwent surgery: 16 without GA (24 electrodes) and 40 with GA (66 electrodes). The mean baseline functional scores and QUEST summary indices were not different between groups (p = 0.91 and p = 0.59, respectively). Non-GA and GA groups did not differ significantly regarding mean postoperative percentages of functional improvement (non-GA, 47.9% vs GA, 48.1%; p = 0.96) or QUEST summary indices (non-GA, 79.9% vs GA, 74.8%; p = 0.50). Accuracy was comparable between groups (mean radial error 0.9 ± 0.3 mm for non-GA and 0.9 ± 0.4 mm for GA patients) (p = 0.75). The mean euclidean error was also similar between groups (non-GA, 1.1 ± 0.6 mm vs GA, 1.2 ± 0.5 mm; p = 0.92). No patient had an intraoperative complication, and the number of postoperative complications was not different between groups (non-GA, n = 1 vs GA, n = 10; p = 0.16).CONCLUSIONSDBS performed with the patient under GA to treat essential tremor is as safe and effective as traditional DBS surgery with intraoperative test stimulation while the patient is under conscious sedation without GA.

scholarly journals “Asleep” deep brain stimulation for essential tremor

2016 ◽  
Vol 124 (6) ◽  
pp. 1842-1849 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tsinsue Chen ◽  
Zaman Mirzadeh ◽  
Kristina Chapple ◽  
Margaret Lambert ◽  
Rohit Dhall ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Deep Brain Stimulation ◽  
Activities Of Daily Living ◽  
General Anesthesia ◽  
Essential Tremor ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Daily Living ◽  
Perioperative Complications ◽  
Test Stimulation ◽  
Intraoperative Test ◽  
Deep Brain

OBJECT Deep brain stimulation (DBS) performed under general anesthesia (“asleep” DBS) has not been previously reported for essential tremor. This is in part due to the inability to visualize the target (the ventral intermediate nucleus [VIM]) on MRI. The authors evaluate the efficacy of this asleep technique in treating essential tremor by indirect VIM targeting. METHODS The authors retrospectively reviewed consecutive cases of initial DBS for essential tremor performed by a single surgeon. DBS was performed with patients awake (n = 40, intraoperative test stimulation without microelectrode recording) or asleep (n = 17, under general anesthesia). Targeting proceeded with standardized anatomical coordinates on preoperative MRI. Intraoperative CT was used for stereotactic registration and lead position confirmation. Functional outcomes were evaluated with pre- and postoperative Bain and Findley Tremor Activities of Daily Living scores. RESULTS A total of 29 leads were placed in asleep patients, and 60 were placed in awake patients. Bain and Findley Tremor Activities of Daily Living Questionnaire scores were not significantly different preoperatively for awake versus asleep cohorts (p = 0.2). The percentage of postoperative improvement was not significantly different between asleep (48.6%) and awake (45.5%) cohorts (p = 0.35). Euclidean error (mm) was higher for awake versus asleep patients (1.7 ± 0.8 vs 1.2 ± 0.4, p = 0.01), and radial error (mm) trended higherfor awake versus asleep patients (1.3 ± 0.8 vs 0.9 ± 0.5, p = 0.06). There were no perioperative complications. CONCLUSIONS In the authors’ initial experience, asleep VIM DBS for essential tremor without intraoperative test stimulation can be performed safely and effectively.

Essential Tremor

2007 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 458-468 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack J. Chen ◽  
David M. Swope
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Botulinum Toxin ◽  
Deep Brain Stimulation ◽  
Patient Education ◽  
Essential Tremor ◽  
Motor Tasks ◽  
Surgical Interventions ◽  
Patients Experience ◽  
Deep Brain

Essential tremor is a common movement disorder that interferes with the performance of motor tasks and social activities. As a consequence, patients experience a reduction in quality of life. The pathophysiology remains not well understood. Differentiation of essential tremor from other tremor syndromes is important in order for clinicians to better provide patient education and therapy. When pharmacotherapy is indicated, the standard agents remain propranolol and primidone. However, additional agents such as benzodiazepines, gabapentin, topiramate, and zonisamide may provide additional symptomatic benefits. Surgical interventions, such as thalamic deep brain stimulation, and focal injections of botulinum toxin offer patients an alternative treatment modality when oral pharmacotherapy is inadequate. A treatment outline is provided to guide clinicians in the management of patients with essential tremor.

Long-term benefits in quality of life after unilateral thalamic deep brain stimulation for essential tremor

2012 ◽  
Vol 117 (1) ◽  
pp. 156-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jules M. Nazzaro ◽  
Rajesh Pahwa ◽  
Kelly E. Lyons
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Deep Brain Stimulation ◽  
Essential Tremor ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Deep Brain

Object The goal of this study was to evaluate short- and long-term benefits in quality of life (QOL) after unilateral deep brain stimulation (DBS) for essential tremor (ET). Methods Patients who received unilateral DBS of the ventral intermediate nucleus of the thalamus between 1997 and 2010 and who had at least 1 follow-up evaluation at least 1 year after surgery were included. Their QOL was assessed with the Parkinson Disease Questionnaire-39 (PDQ-39), and ET was measured with the Fahn-Tolosa-Marin tremor rating scale (TRS) prior to surgery and then postoperatively with the stimulation in the on mode. Results Ninety-one patients (78 at 1 year; 42 at 2–7 years [mean 4 years]; and 22 at > 7–12 years [mean 9 years]) were included in the analysis. The TRS total, targeted tremor, and activities of daily living (ADL) scores were significantly improved compared with presurgical scores up to 12 years. The PDQ-39 ADL, emotional well-being, stigma, and total scores were significantly improved up to 7 years after surgery compared with presurgical scores. At the longest follow-up, only the PDQ-39 stigma score was significantly improved, and the PDQ-39 mobility score was significantly worsened. Conclusions Unilateral thalamic stimulation significantly reduces ET and improves ADL scores for up to 12 years after surgery, as measured by the TRS. The PDQ-39 total score and the domains of ADL, emotional well-being, and stigma were significantly improved up to 7 years. Although scores were improved compared with presurgery, other than stigma, these benefits did not remain significant at the longest (up to 12 years) follow-up, probably related in part to changes due to aging and comorbidities.

Deep Brain Stimulation Improves Medication Related Addictive Behavior and Associated Quality of Life

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hunter Covert ◽  
Pennie S. Seibert ◽  
Caitlin C. Otto ◽  
Missy Coblentz ◽  
Nicole Whitener ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Deep Brain Stimulation ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Addictive Behavior ◽  
Deep Brain

Clinical outcomes of asleep vs awake deep brain stimulation for Parkinson disease

Neurology ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 89 (19) ◽  
pp. 1944-1950 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew A. Brodsky ◽  
Shannon Anderson ◽  
Charles Murchison ◽  
Mara Seier ◽  
Jennifer Wilhelm ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Deep Brain Stimulation ◽  
Parkinson Disease ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Electrode Placement ◽  
Microelectrode Recording ◽  
Imaging Guidance ◽  
Motor Outcomes ◽  
Deep Brain

Objective:To compare motor and nonmotor outcomes at 6 months of asleep deep brain stimulation (DBS) for Parkinson disease (PD) using intraoperative imaging guidance to confirm electrode placement vs awake DBS using microelectrode recording to confirm electrode placement.Methods:DBS candidates with PD referred to Oregon Health & Science University underwent asleep DBS with imaging guidance. Six-month outcomes were compared to those of patients who previously underwent awake DBS by the same surgeon and center. Assessments included an “off”-levodopa Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) II and III, the 39-item Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire, motor diaries, and speech fluency.Results:Thirty participants underwent asleep DBS and 39 underwent awake DBS. No difference was observed in improvement of UPDRS III (+14.8 ± 8.9 vs +17.6 ± 12.3 points, p = 0.19) or UPDRS II (+9.3 ± 2.7 vs +7.4 ± 5.8 points, p = 0.16). Improvement in “on” time without dyskinesia was superior in asleep DBS (+6.4 ± 3.0 h/d vs +1.7 ± 1.2 h/d, p = 0.002). Quality of life scores improved in both groups (+18.8 ± 9.4 in awake, +8.9 ± 11.5 in asleep). Improvement in summary index (p = 0.004) and subscores for cognition (p = 0.011) and communication (p < 0.001) were superior in asleep DBS. Speech outcomes were superior in asleep DBS, both in category (+2.77 ± 4.3 points vs −6.31 ± 9.7 points (p = 0.0012) and phonemic fluency (+1.0 ± 8.2 points vs −5.5 ± 9.6 points, p = 0.038).Conclusions:Asleep DBS for PD improved motor outcomes over 6 months on par with or better than awake DBS, was superior with regard to speech fluency and quality of life, and should be an option considered for all patients who are candidates for this treatment.Clinicaltrials.gov identifier:NCT01703598.Classification of evidence:This study provides Class III evidence that for patients with PD undergoing DBS, asleep intraoperative CT imaging–guided implantation is not significantly different from awake microelectrode recording–guided implantation in improving motor outcomes at 6 months.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document