Literature DB >> 11409503

Revision of deep brain stimulator for tremor. Technical note.

J M Schwalb1, H A Riina, B Skolnick, J L Jaggi, T Simuni, G H Baltuch.   

Abstract

The treatment of essential tremor with thalamic deep brain stimulation (DBS) is considered to be more effective and to cause less morbidity than treatment with thalamotomy. Nonetheless, implantation of an indwelling electrode, connectors, and a generator is associated with specific types of morbidity. The authors describe three patients who required revision of their DBS systems due to lead breakage. The connector between the DBS electrode and the extension wire, which connects to the subclavicular pulse generator, was originally placed subcutaneously in the cervical region to decrease the risk of erosion through the scalp and to improve cosmesis. Three patients presented with fractured DBS electrodes that were located in the cervical region near the connector, necessitating reoperation with stereotactic retargeting and placement of a new intracranial electrode. At reoperation, the connectors were placed subgaleally over the parietal region. Management of these cases has led to modifications in the operative procedure designed to improve the durability of DBS systems. The authors recommend that surgeons avoid placing the connection between the DBS electrode and the extension wire in the cervical region because patient movement can cause microfractures in the electrode. Such microfractures require intracranial revision, which may be associated with a higher risk of morbidity than the initial operation. The authors also recommend considering prophylactic relocation of the connectors from the cervical area to the subgaleal parietal region to decrease the risk of future DBS electrode fracture, which would necessitate a more lengthy procedure to revise the intracranial electrode.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11409503     DOI: 10.3171/jns.2001.94.6.1010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosurg        ISSN: 0022-3085            Impact factor:   5.115


  5 in total

Review 1.  The history and future of deep brain stimulation.

Authors:  Jason M Schwalb; Clement Hamani
Journal:  Neurotherapeutics       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 7.620

Review 2.  MR-guided focused ultrasound surgery, present and future.

Authors:  David Schlesinger; Stanley Benedict; Chris Diederich; Wladyslaw Gedroyc; Alexander Klibanov; James Larner
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Long Term Performance of a Bi-Directional Neural Interface for Deep Brain Stimulation and Recording.

Authors:  Scott R Stanslaski; Michelle A Case; Jonathon E Giftakis; Robert S Raike; Paul H Stypulkowski
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2022-06-09       Impact factor: 3.473

4.  Sudden loss of the deep brain stimulation effect with high impedance without macroscopic fracture: a case report and review of the published literature.

Authors:  Hui-Jun Yang; Ji Young Yun; Young Eun Kim; Yong Hoon Lim; Han-Joon Kim; Sun Ha Paek; Beom S Jeon
Journal:  Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat       Date:  2015-07-21       Impact factor: 2.570

5.  Towards unambiguous reporting of complications related to deep brain stimulation surgery: A retrospective single-center analysis and systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Katja Engel; Torge Huckhagel; Alessandro Gulberti; Monika Pötter-Nerger; Eik Vettorazzi; Ute Hidding; Chi-Un Choe; Simone Zittel; Hanna Braaß; Peter Ludewig; Miriam Schaper; Kara Krajewski; Christian Oehlwein; Katrin Mittmann; Andreas K Engel; Christian Gerloff; Manfred Westphal; Christian K E Moll; Carsten Buhmann; Johannes A Köppen; Wolfgang Hamel
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-08-02       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.