Stimulation-induced Side Effects Research Articles

Phantom-Enhanced High Mechanical Accuracy for Frame-Based Deep Brain Stimulation.

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a neurosurgical procedure that depends on high-accuracy targeting of structures to implant electrodes within the brain. The positioning of these electrodes in the brain determines the long-term efficacy of treating diseases such as Parkinson's disease, essential tremor, or dystonia.Misplaced electrodes in DBS can lead to poor efficacy and stimulation-induced side effects. Widespread targeting errors and variability have been published throughout the literature. As such,improvement in targeting accuracy is needed to enhance the quality of the procedures. A stereotactic phantom was utilized to test and adjust targeting before the surgical placement in the brain for 91 sequential electrodes.The tip of the microelectrode, the first rigid point in time, was measured and compared to the planned target.The technique utilized a to-target cannulawith an XY stage that allowed x-axis and y-axis adjustments and correction for inaccuracies relative to the phantom.A calculation was developed to convert anatomical angles (sagittal and coronal) provided by commercial planning stations to spherical angles to calculate points along a trajectory.Errorcalculations included each dimensional axis, Euclidean error, and radial error. Bends in the cannula and microelectrode were observed and corrected by referencing the phantom. All 91 first-pass tracks traversed the intended target, and three electrodes required a second mapping track beyond the first penetration due to neurophysiological and intraoperative testing. The results showed overall ultra-high (0-0.5 mm) to high (>0.5-1 mm) accuracy, an average Euclidean error of 0.66±0.30 mm, and a radial error of 0.45±0.28 mm with dimensional errors of less than 0.5 mm per axis. The utilization of a stereotactic phantom is an important tool to enhance the stereotactic targeting before insertion into the brain. This phantom technique yielded ultra-high to high accuracy in error calculations.Future methods and studies shouldfocus on error minimization to enhance these DBS mechanical accuracy and correlations with clinical outcomes.

Stimulation-induced Sensory Side Effects from Globus Pallidus Internus Deep Brain Stimulation? (P2-3.013)

Stimulation-induced Sensory Side Effects from Globus Pallidus Internus Deep Brain Stimulation? (P2-3.013)

Deep Brain Stimulation for Orthostatic Tremor: An Observational Study.

Primary orthostatic tremor (OT) can affect patients' life. Treatment of OT with deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the thalamic ventral intermediate nucleus (Vim) is described in a limited number of patients. The Vim and posterior subthalamic area (PSA) can be targeted in a single trajectory, allowing both stimulation of the Vim and/or dentatorubrothalamic tract (DRT). In essential tremor this is currently often used with positive effects. To evaluate the efficacy of Vim/DRT-DBS in OT-patients, based on standing time and Quality of Life (QoL), also on the long-term. Furthermore, to relate stimulation of the Vim and DRT, medial lemniscus (ML) and pyramidal tract (PT) to beneficial clinical and side-effects. Nine severely affected OT-patients received bilateral Vim/DRT-DBS. Primary outcome measure was standing time; secondary measures included self-reported measures, neurophysiological measures, structural analyses, surgical complications, stimulation-induced side-effects, and QoL up to 56 months. Stimulation of volume of tissue activated (VTA) were related to outcome measures. Average maximum standing time increased from 41.0 s ± 51.0 s to 109.3 s ± 65.0 s after 18 months, with improvements measured in seven of nine patients. VTA (n = 7) overlapped with the DRT in six patients and with the ML and/or PT in six patients. All patients experienced side-effects and QoL worsened during the first year after surgery, which improved again during long-term follow-up, although remaining below age-related normal values. Most patients reported a positive effect of DBS. Vim/DRT-DBS improved standing time in patients with severe OT. Observed side-effects are possibly related to stimulation of the ML and PT.

Management of essential tremor deep brain stimulation-induced side effects.

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an effective surgical therapy for carefully selected patients with medication refractory essential tremor (ET). The most popular anatomical targets for ET DBS are the ventral intermedius nucleus (VIM) of the thalamus, the caudal zona incerta (cZI) and the posterior subthalamic area (PSA). Despite extensive knowledge in DBS programming for tremor suppression, it is not uncommon to experience stimulation induced side effects related to DBS therapy. Dysarthria, dysphagia, ataxia, and gait impairment are common stimulation induced side effects from modulation of brain tissue that surround the target of interest. In this review, we explore current evidence about the etiology of stimulation induced side effects in ET DBS and provide several evidence-based strategies to troubleshoot, reprogram and retain tremor suppression.

Directional deep brain stimulation in the management of Parkinson's disease: efficacy and constraints-an analytical appraisal.

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a widely employed treatment for Parkinson's disease. However, conventional DBS utilizing ring-shaped leads can often result in undesirable side effects by stimulating nearby brain structures, thus limiting its effectiveness. To address this issue, a novel DBS electrode was developed to allow for directional stimulation, avoiding neighboring structures. This literature review aims to analyze the disparities between conventional and directional DBS and discuss the benefits and limitations associated with this innovative electrode design, focusing on the stimulation-induced side effects it can or cannot mitigate. A comprehensive search was conducted in MEDLINE/PubMed, ScienceDirect, and EBSCO databases using the Boolean search criteria: "Deep brain stimulation" AND "Parkinson" AND "Directional." Following the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, the selected articles were downloaded for full-text reading. Subsequently, the results were organized and analyzed to compose this article. Numerous studies have demonstrated that directional DBS effectively reduces side effects associated with brain stimulation, prevents the stimulation of non-targeted structures, and expands the therapeutic window, among other advantages. However, it has been observed that directional DBS may be more challenging to program and requires higher energy consumption. Furthermore, there is a lack of standardization among different manufacturers of directional DBS electrodes. Various stimulation-induced side effects, including dysarthria, dyskinesia, paresthesias, and symptoms of pyramidal tract activation, have been shown to be mitigated with the use of directional DBS. Moreover, directional electrodes offer a wider therapeutic window and a reduced incidence of undesired effects, requiring the same or lower minimum current for symptom relief compared to conventional DBS. The utilization of directional leads in DBS offers numerous advantages over conventional electrodes without significant drawbacks for patients undergoing directional DBS therapy.

Mapping of Capsular Side Effects by using Intraoperative Motor-Evoked Potentials during Asleep Deep Brain Stimulation Surgery of the Subthalamic Nucleus for Parkinson’s Disease

Introduction: The aim of this study was to present a novel technique for subthalamic nucleus (STN) deep brain stimulation (DBS) implantation under general anesthesia by using intraoperative motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) through direct lead stimulation and determining their correlation to the thresholds of postoperative stimulation-induced side effects. Methods: This study included 22 consecutive patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease who underwent surgery in our institution between January 2021 and September 2023. All patients underwent bilateral implantation in the STN (44 leads) under general anesthesia without microelectrode recordings (MERs) by using MEPs with electrostimulation directly through the DBS lead. No cortical stimulation was performed during this process. Intraoperative fluoroscopic guidance and immediate postoperative computed tomography were used to verify the electrode’s position. The lowest MEP thresholds were recorded and were correlated to the postoperative stimulation-induced side-effect threshold. The predictive values of the MEPs were analyzed. Five DBS leads were repositioned intraoperatively due to the MEP results. Results: A moderately strong positive correlation was found between the MEP threshold and the capsular side-effect threshold (RS = 0.425, 95% CI, 0.17–0.67, p = 0.004). The highest sensitivity and specificity for predicting a side-effect threshold of 5 mA were found to be at 2.4 mA MEP threshold (sensitivity 97%, specificity 87.5%, positive predictive value 97%, and negative predictive value 87.5%). We also found high sensitivity and specificity (100%) at 1.15 mA MEP threshold and 3 mA side-effect threshold. Out of the total 44 leads, 5 (11.3%) leads were repositioned intraoperatively due to MEP thresholds lower than 1 mA (4 leads) or higher than 5 mA (1 lead). The mean accuracy on postoperative CT was 1.05 mm, and there were no postoperative side-effects under 2.8 mA. Conclusion: Intraoperative MEPs with electrostimulation directly through the contacts of the DBS lead correlate with the stimulation-induced capsular side effects. The lead reposition based on intraoperative MEP may enlarge the therapeutic window of DBS stimulation.

Directional versus ring-mode deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease: protocol of a multi-centre double-blind randomised crossover trial

BackgroundThe effectiveness of Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) therapy for Parkinson’s disease can be limited by side-effects caused by electrical current spillover into structures adjacent to the target area. The objective of the STEEred versus RING-mode DBS for Parkinson’s disease (STEERING) study is to investigate if directional DBS for Parkinson’s disease results in a better clinical outcome when compared to ring-mode DBS.MethodsThe STEERING study is a prospective multi-centre double-blind randomised crossover trial. Inclusion criteria are Parkinson’s disease, subthalamic nucleus DBS in a ‘classic’ ring-mode setting for a minimum of six months, and optimal ring-mode settings have been established. Participants are categorised into one of two subgroups according to their clinical response to the ring-mode settings as ‘responders’ (i.e., patient with a satisfactory effect of ring-mode DBS) or ‘non-responder’ (i.e., patient with a non-satisfactory effect of ring-mode DBS). A total of 64 responders and 38 non-responders will be included (total 102 patients). After an optimisation period in which an optimal directional setting is found, participants are randomised to first receive ring-mode DBS for 56 days (range 28–66) followed by directional DBS for 56 days (28–66) or vice-versa. The primary outcome is the difference between ring-mode DBS and directional DBS settings on the Movement Disorders Society Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale – Motor Evaluation (MDS-UPDRS-ME) in the off-medication state. Secondary outcome measures consist of MDS-UPDRS-ME in the on-medication state, MDS-UPDRS Activities of Daily Living, MDS-UPDRS Motor Complications–Dyskinesia, disease related quality of life measured with the Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire 39, stimulation-induced side-effects, antiparkinsonian medication use, and DBS-parameters. Participants’ therapy preference is measured at the end of the study. Outcomes will be analysed for both responder and non-responder groups, as well as for both groups pooled together.DiscussionThe STEERING trial will provide insights into whether or not directional DBS should be standardly used in all Parkinson’s disease DBS patients or if directional DBS should only be used in a case-based approach.Trial registrationThis trial was registered on the Netherlands Trial Register, as trial NL6508 (NTR6696) on June 23, 2017.

Multivariable closed-loop control of deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease

Objective. Closed-loop deep brain stimulation (DBS) methods for Parkinson’s disease (PD) to-date modulate either stimulation amplitude or frequency to control a single biomarker. While good performance has been demonstrated for symptoms that are correlated with the chosen biomarker, suboptimal regulation can occur for uncorrelated symptoms or when the relationship between biomarker and symptom varies. Control of stimulation-induced side-effects is typically not considered. Approach. A multivariable control architecture is presented to selectively target suppression of either tremor or subthalamic nucleus beta band oscillations. DBS pulse amplitude and duration are modulated to maintain amplitude below a threshold and avoid stimulation of distal large diameter axons associated with stimulation-induced side effects. A supervisor selects between a bank of controllers which modulate DBS pulse amplitude to control rest tremor or beta activity depending on the level of muscle electromyographic (EMG) activity detected. A secondary controller limits pulse amplitude and modulates pulse duration to target smaller diameter axons lying close to the electrode. The control architecture was investigated in a computational model of the PD motor network which simulated the cortico-basal ganglia network, motoneuron pool, EMG and muscle force signals. Main results. Good control of both rest tremor and beta activity was observed with reduced power delivered when compared with conventional open loop stimulation, The supervisor avoided over- or under-stimulation which occurred when using a single controller tuned to one biomarker. When DBS amplitude was constrained, the secondary controller maintained the efficacy of stimulation by increasing pulse duration to compensate for reduced amplitude. Dual parameter control delivered effective control of the target biomarkers, with additional savings in the power delivered. Significance. Non-linear multivariable control can enable targeted suppression of motor symptoms for PD patients. Moreover, dual parameter control facilitates automatic regulation of the stimulation therapeutic dosage to prevent overstimulation, whilst providing additional power savings.

Ethical considerations in closed loop deep brain stimulation

BackgroundClosed-loop deep brain stimulation (DBS) uses feedback to infer a clinical state and adjust stimulation accordingly. This novel mechanism has several potential advantages over conventional DBS including reducing stimulation-induced side effects, improving battery longevity, and alleviating symptoms not optimally treated with standard protocols. However, several ethical challenges may arise with the implementation of this technology, particularly with respect to clinical decision making. ObjectiveTo discuss potential ethical and clinical dilemmas encountered in using closed-loop DBS for neurological and psychiatric disorders. MethodsThe relevant literature is reviewed and supplemented with discussion of ethically challenging clinical scenarios. We outline an ethical framework for addressing these issues and provide practical recommendations for clinicians and researchers. ResultsEthical considerations in closed-loop DBS revolve around five key principles: 1) risk/benefit analysis; 2) inclusion and exclusion criteria; 3) respect for patient autonomy; 4) quality of life and patient benefit; and 5) concerns associated with recording neural activity. Conclusion(s)Developing and implementing a pragmatic framework for ethical considerations in closed-loop DBS will be critical as this technology is utilized in patients with both neurologic and psychiatric indications.

Intraoperative valence testing to adjudicate between ventral capsule/ventral striatum and bed nucleus of the stria terminalis target selection in deep brain stimulation for obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an accepted therapy for severe, treatment-refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder (trOCD). The optimal DBS target location within the anterior limb of the internal capsule, particularly along the anterior-posterior axis, remains elusive. Empirical evidence from several studies in the past decade has suggested that the ideal target lies in the vicinity of the anterior commissure (AC), either just anterior to the AC, above the ventral striatum (VS), or just posterior to the AC, above the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST). Various methods have been utilized to optimize target selection for trOCD DBS. The authors describe their practice of planning trajectories to both the VS and BNST and adjudicating between them with awake intraoperative valence testing to individualize permanent target selection. Eight patients with trOCD underwent awake DBS with trajectories planned for both VS and BNST targets bilaterally. The authors intraoperatively assessed the acute effects of stimulation on mood, energy, and anxiety and implanted the trajectory with the most reliable positive valence responses and least stimulation-induced side effects. The method of intraoperative target adjudication is described, and the OCD outcome at last follow-up is reported. The mean patient age at surgery was 41.25 ± 15.1 years, and the mean disease duration was 22.75 ± 10.2 years. The median preoperative Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) score was 39 (range 34-40). Two patients had previously undergone capsulotomy, with insufficient response. Seven (44%) of 16 leads were moved to the second target based on intraoperative stimulation findings, 4 of them to avoid strong negative valence effects. Three patients had an asymmetric implant (1 lead in each target). All 8 patients (100%) met full response criteria, and the mean Y-BOCS score reduction across the full cohort was 51.2% ± 12.8%. Planning and intraoperatively testing trajectories flanking the AC-superjacent to the VS anteriorly and to the BNST posteriorly-allowed identification of positive valence responses and acute adverse effects. Awake testing helped to select between possible trajectories and identify individually optimized targets in DBS for trOCD.

Employing LFP recording to optimize stimulation location and amplitude in chronic DBS for Parkinson’s disease: A proof-of-concept pilot study

ObjectivesParkinson patients with chronic DBS routinely receive sensing-enabled implantable pulse generators upon battery replacement. Here we aimed to assess whether and/or how local field potential based reprogramming may be of use in this population. MethodsIn four Parkinson patients on chronic treatment with bilateral STN-DBS and implanted with the Percept™ PC implantable pulse generator, we employed an approach to select stimulation contacts and amplitudes based on beta-activity. When applicable, the effect of parameter adjustments on DBS effectiveness and DBS-induced side effects was assessed. ResultsIn one out of eight electrodes, the LFP-guided contact was different from the clinically determined one. Beta-based therapeutic windows could be defined in five out of eight electrodes. LFP-guided parameter adjustments were performed in two patients, resulting in improved motor fluctuations and decreased stimulation-induced side effects respectively. DiscussionLFP-guided DBS reprogramming has the potential to improve effectiveness and decrease side effects in selected cases. Prospective controlled research is required to assess the clinical usefulness of LFP-guided DBS reprogramming.

Deep Brain Stimulation for Chronic Facial Pain: An Individual Participant Data (IPD) Meta-Analysis

Despite available, advanced pharmacological and behavioral therapies, refractory chronic facial pain of different origins still poses a therapeutic challenge. In circumstances where there is insufficient responsiveness to pharmacological/behavioral therapies, deep brain stimulation should be considered as a potential effective treatment option. We performed an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis including searches on PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (2000-2022). The primary endpoint was the change in pain intensity (visual analogue scale; VAS) at a defined time-point of ≤3 months post-DBS. In addition, correlation and regression analyses were performed to identify predictive markers (age, duration of pain, frequency, amplitude, intensity, contact configuration, and the DBS target). A total of seven trials consisting of 54 screened patients met the inclusion criteria. DBS significantly reduced the pain levels after 3 months without being related to a specific DBS target, age, contact configuration, stimulation intensity, frequency, amplitude, or chronic pain duration. Adverse events were an infection or lead fracture (19%), stimulation-induced side effects (7%), and three deaths (unrelated to DBS-from cancer progression or a second stroke). Although comparable long-term data are lacking, the current published data indicate that DBS (thalamic and PVG/PAG) effectively suppresses facial pain in the short-term. However, the low-quality evidence, reporting bias, and placebo effects must be considered in future randomized-controlled DBS trials for facial pain.

Double blind, nonrandomized crossover study of active recharge biphasic deep brain stimulation for primary dystonia

BackgroundDeep brain stimulation (DBS) of the globus pallidus interna (GPi) is an effective therapy for select patients with primary dystonia. DBS programming for dystonia is often challenging due to variable time to symptomatic improvement or stimulation induced side effects (SISE) such as capsular or optic tract activation which can prolong device optimization. ObjectiveTo characterize the safety and tolerability of active recharge biphasic DBS (bDBS) in primary dystonia and to compare it to conventional clinical DBS (clinDBS). MethodsTen subjects with primary dystonia and GPi DBS underwent a single center, double blind, nonrandomized crossover study comparing clinDBS versus bDBS. The testing occurred over two-days. bDBS and clinDBS were administered on separate days and each was activated for 6 h. Rating scales were collected by video recording and scored by four blinded movement disorders trained neurologists. ResultsThe bDBS paradigm was safe and well-tolerated in all ten subjects. There were no persistent SISE reported. The mean change in the Unified Dystonia Rating Scale after 4 h of stimulation was greater in bDBS when compared to clinDBS (−6.5 vs 0.3, p < 0.04). ConclusionIn this pilot study, we demonstrated that biphasic DBS is a novel stimulation paradigm which can be administered safely. The biphasic waveform revealed a greater immediate improvement. Further studies are needed to determine whether this immediate improvement persists with chronic stimulation or if clinDBS will eventually achieve similar levels of improvement to bDBS over time.

Efficient suppression of parkinsonian beta oscillations in a closed-loop model of deep brain stimulation with amplitude modulation.

Parkinson's disease (PD) is a movement disorder characterized by the pathological beta band (15-30 Hz) neural oscillations within the basal ganglia (BG). It is shown that the suppression of abnormal beta oscillations is correlated with the improvement of PD motor symptoms, which is a goal of standard therapies including deep brain stimulation (DBS). To overcome the stimulation-induced side effects and inefficiencies of conventional DBS (cDBS) and to reduce the administered stimulation current, closed-loop adaptive DBS (aDBS) techniques were developed. In this method, the frequency and/or amplitude of stimulation are modulated based on various disease biomarkers. Here, by computational modeling of a cortico-BG-thalamic network in normal and PD conditions, we show that closed-loop aDBS of the subthalamic nucleus (STN) with amplitude modulation leads to a more effective suppression of pathological beta oscillations within the parkinsonian BG. Our results show that beta band neural oscillations are restored to their normal range and the reliability of the response of the thalamic neurons to motor cortex commands is retained due to aDBS with amplitude modulation. Furthermore, notably less stimulation current is administered during aDBS compared with cDBS due to a closed-loop control of stimulation amplitude based on the STN local field potential (LFP) beta activity. Efficient models of closed-loop stimulation may contribute to the clinical development of optimized aDBS techniques designed to reduce potential stimulation-induced side effects of cDBS in PD patients while leading to a better therapeutic outcome.

An Institutional Experience of Directional Deep Brain Stimulation and a Review of the Literature

IntroductionDirectional deep brain stimulation (dDBS) has been suggested to have a similar therapeutic effect when compared with the traditional omnidirectional DBS, but with an improved therapeutic window that yields optimized clinical effect owing to the ability to better direct, or “steer,” electric current. We present our single-center, retrospective analysis of our experience in the use of dDBS in patients with movement disorders and provide a review of the literature. Materials and MethodsWe identified all patients with Parkinson disease (PD) and essential tremor (ET) who received a dDBS system between 2018 and 2022 and retrospectively examined characteristics of their longitudinal treatment. A total of 70 leads were identified across 42 patients (28 PD, 14 ET). ResultsThree types of systems were implemented (single-segment activation, 45.2% of patients; multiple independent current control, 50.0%; and local field potential sensing-enabled, 4.7%). The subthalamic nucleus or globus pallidus internus was targeted in PD, and the ventral intermediate nucleus of the thalamus in ET. Across the entire cohort (n = 70 leads), at initial programming, 54.2% of leads (n = 38) were programmed using directional stimulation. At the most recent reprogramming, 58.6% of leads (n = 41) implemented directionality. In patients with PD, the average decrease in levodopa-equivalent daily dose at six months after implantation was 35.4% ± 39.2%. Despite the ability to steer current to relieve stimulation-induced side effects, ten leads in six patients required surgical revision owing to electrode malposition. ConclusionsWe show wide adaptability and implementation of directional stimulation, adding to the growing compendium of real-world uses of dDBS therapy. We used directionality to improve clinical response in both patients with PD and patients with ET and found that its programming flexibility was used at high rates long after implantation and initial programming. In patients with PD, dDBS led to a significant reduction in dopaminergic medication, suggesting sustained clinical improvement. Nonetheless, accurate surgical placement remains necessary to ensure optimal clinical outcomes.

Implementing automation in deep brain stimulation: has the time come?

In The Lancet Digital Health, Jan Roediger and colleagues1 present the results of a prospective, randomised, double-blind, crossover clinical trial assessing the therapeutic benefit of deep brain stimulation (DBS) settings derived from individual neuroimaging metrics. This evaluates a data-driven model of automated DBS parameter setting, maximising the predicted motor symptom control while accounting for potential stimulation-induced side-effects. Compared with current standard of care, the longer monopolar review based on existing clinical algorithms, the authors established non-inferiority of motor symptom control in a cohort of 35 patients with Parkinson's disease treated with DBS of the subthalamic nucleus.

Combined Short-Pulse and Directional Deep Brain Stimulation of the Thalamic Ventral Intermediate Area for Essential Tremor

ObjectiveNovel deep brain stimulation (DBS) systems allow directional and short-pulse stimulation to potentially improve symptoms and reduce side effects. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of short-pulse and directional stimulation, in addition to a combination of both, in the ventral intermediate thalamus (VIM)/posterior subthalamic area (PSA) on tremor and stimulation-induced side effects in patients with essential tremor. Materials and MethodsWe recruited 11 patients with essential tremor and VIM/PSA-DBS. Tremor severity (Fahn-Tolosa-Marin), ataxia (International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale), and paresthesia (visual analog scale) were assessed with conventional omnidirectional and directional stimulation with pulse width of 60 μs and 30 μs. ResultsAll stimulation conditions reduced tremor. The best directional stimulation with 60 μs reduced more tremor than did most other stimulation settings. The best directional stimulation, regardless of pulse width, effectively reduced stimulation-induced ataxia compared with the conventional stimulation (ring 60 μs) or worst directional stimulation with 60 μs. All new stimulation modes reduced occurrence of paresthesia, but only the best directional stimulation with 30 μs attenuated paresthesia compared with the conventional stimulation (ring 60 μs) or worst directional stimulation with 60 μs. The best directional stimulation with 30 μs reduced tremor, ataxia, and paresthesia compared with conventional stimulation in most patients. Correlation analyses indicated that more anterior stimulation sites are associated with stronger ataxia reduction with directional 30 μs than with conventional 60 μs stimulation. ConclusionDirectional and short-pulse stimulation, and a combination of both, revealed beneficial effects on stimulation-induced adverse effects.

Programming of subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease with sweet spot-guided parameter suggestions.

Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) is an effective treatment for advanced Parkinson's disease. However, identifying stimulation parameters, such as contact and current amplitudes, is time-consuming based on trial and error. Directional leads add more stimulation options and render this process more challenging with a higher workload for neurologists and more discomfort for patients. In this study, a sweet spot-guided algorithm was developed that automatically suggested stimulation parameters. These suggestions were retrospectively compared to clinical monopolar reviews. A cohort of 24 Parkinson's disease patients underwent bilateral DBS implantation in the subthalamic nucleus at our center. First, the DBS' leads were reconstructed with the open-source toolbox Lead-DBS. Second, a sweet spot for rigidity reduction was set as the desired stimulation target for programming. This sweet spot and estimations of the volume of tissue activated were used to suggest (i) the best lead level, (ii) the best contact, and (iii) the effect thresholds for full therapeutic effect for each contact. To assess these sweet spot-guided suggestions, the clinical monopolar reviews were considered as ground truth. In addition, the sweet spot-guided suggestions for best lead level and best contact were compared against reconstruction-guided suggestions, which considered the lead location with respect to the subthalamic nucleus. Finally, a graphical user interface was developed as an add-on to Lead-DBS and is publicly available. With the interface, suggestions for all contacts of a lead can be generated in a few seconds. The accuracy for suggesting the best out of four lead levels was 56%. These sweet spot-guided suggestions were not significantly better than reconstruction-guided suggestions (p = 0.3). The accuracy for suggesting the best out of eight contacts was 41%. These sweet spot-guided suggestions were significantly better than reconstruction-guided suggestions (p < 0.001). The sweet spot-guided suggestions of each contact's effect threshold had a mean error of 1.2 mA. On an individual lead level, the suggestions can vary more with mean errors ranging from 0.3 to 4.8 mA. Further analysis is warranted to improve the sweet spot-guided suggestions and to account for more symptoms and stimulation-induced side effects.

O035 / #767 STIMULATION-INDUCED SIDE EFFECTS OF DEEP BRAIN STIMULATION IN THE VENTRALIS INTERMEDIUS AND POSTERIOR SUBTHALAMIC AREA FOR ESSENTIAL TREMOR: TRACK 2: DEEP BRAIN STIMULATION FOR MOVEMENT DISORDERS

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) targeting the ventralis intermedius (VIM) nucleus of the thalamus and the posterior subthalamic area (PSA) has been shown to be an effective treatment for essential tremor (ET). The aim of this study was to compare the stimulation-induced side effects of DBS targeting the VIM and PSA using a single electrode.

Motor evoked potentials versus Macrostimulation in predicting the postoperative motor threshold in STN Deep brain stimulation

IntroductionAccuracy is crucial in Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS). Electrophysiological and image-based techniques are used to avoid suboptimal positioning. Macrostimulation is the gold standard to delineate the therapeutic window intraoperatively. Despite this, electrode revision rates due to malpositioning are as high as 17%. The goal was to compare motor evoked potentials (MEPs) with the gold standard of Macrostimulation. We assessed accuracy and precision as well as the correlation in predicting motor side effects at the initial mapping 4 weeks postoperatively. MethodsIn this prospective study intraoperative MEPs from 94 contacts in 16 patients undergoing STN DBS under local anesthesia were correlated to the postoperative threshold for stimulation-induced motor side effects and compared to intraoperative Macrostimulation. Analysis of accuracy, precision and correlation (Pearson) was performed. ResultsMEPs of the upper extremity had a mean percentage error of 25% (SD 38.8%) and correlated significantly with the motor threshold at postoperative mapping (R=0.235). Macrostimulation was less accurate and precise with a mean percentage error of − 68% (SD 78.8%) but had a higher correlation (R=0.388). MEPs rarely (3%) overestimated the threshold by maximally 1 mA. In contrast, Macrostimulation overestimated the threshold by over 1 mA in 69% leading to a false sense of security. ConclusionMEPs are feasible in an awake setting during Deep Brain Stimulation in the STN for PD patients. MEPs of the upper extremity are more accurate and precise predicting the motor threshold and avoid a false sense of security in comparison to the gold standard of Macrostimulation.