BACKGROUND: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the subthalamic nucleus (STN) is effective in alleviating Parkinson's disease (PD) symptoms (tremor, rigidity and bradykinesia) and may improve gait and postural impairment associated with the disease. However, improvement of gait is not always as predictable as the clinical outcome. This may relate to the type of gait impairment or localization of the active DBS contact. METHODS: The active contact was visualized on peri-operative magnetic resonance imaging in 22 patients with idiopathic PD, consecutively treated with bilateral STN DBS. Stimulation site was grouped as either in the dorsal/ventral STN or medial/lateral hereof and anterior/posterior STN or medial/lateral hereof. The localization was compared with relative improvement of clinical outcome (UPDRS-III). In 10 patients, quantitative gait analyses were performed, and the improvement in gait performance was compared with stimulation site in the STN. RESULTS: Of 44 active contacts, 77% were inside the nucleus, 23% were medial hereof. Stimulation of the dorsal half improved UPDRS-III significantly more than ventral STN DBS (P = 0.02). However, there were no differences between anterior and posterior stimulation in the dorsal STN. Step velocity and length improved significantly more with dorsal stimulation compared with ventral stimulation (P = 0.03 and P = 0.02). Balance during gait was also more improved with dorsal stimulation compared with ventral stimulation. CONCLUSIONS: Deep brain stimulation of the dorsal STN is superior to stimulation of the ventral STN. Possible different effects of stimulation inside the nucleus underline the need for exact knowledge of the active stimulation site position to target the most effective area.
BACKGROUND: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the subthalamic nucleus (STN) is effective in alleviating Parkinson's disease (PD) symptoms (tremor, rigidity and bradykinesia) and may improve gait and postural impairment associated with the disease. However, improvement of gait is not always as predictable as the clinical outcome. This may relate to the type of gait impairment or localization of the active DBS contact. METHODS: The active contact was visualized on peri-operative magnetic resonance imaging in 22 patients with idiopathic PD, consecutively treated with bilateral STN DBS. Stimulation site was grouped as either in the dorsal/ventral STN or medial/lateral hereof and anterior/posterior STN or medial/lateral hereof. The localization was compared with relative improvement of clinical outcome (UPDRS-III). In 10 patients, quantitative gait analyses were performed, and the improvement in gait performance was compared with stimulation site in the STN. RESULTS: Of 44 active contacts, 77% were inside the nucleus, 23% were medial hereof. Stimulation of the dorsal half improved UPDRS-III significantly more than ventral STN DBS (P = 0.02). However, there were no differences between anterior and posterior stimulation in the dorsal STN. Step velocity and length improved significantly more with dorsal stimulation compared with ventral stimulation (P = 0.03 and P = 0.02). Balance during gait was also more improved with dorsal stimulation compared with ventral stimulation. CONCLUSIONS: Deep brain stimulation of the dorsal STN is superior to stimulation of the ventral STN. Possible different effects of stimulation inside the nucleus underline the need for exact knowledge of the active stimulation site position to target the most effective area.
Authors: Harrison C Walker; He Huang; Christopher L Gonzalez; James E Bryant; Jeffrey Killen; Gary R Cutter; Robert C Knowlton; Erwin B Montgomery; Bart L Guthrie; Ray L Watts Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2012-05-30 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Alfonso Fasano; Camila C Aquino; Joachim K Krauss; Christopher R Honey; Bastiaan R Bloem Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2015-01-13 Impact factor: 42.937
Authors: M E McNeely; T Hershey; M C Campbell; S D Tabbal; M Karimi; J M Hartlein; H M Lugar; F J Revilla; J S Perlmutter; G M Earhart Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2011-04-08 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Jaimie A Roper; Nyeonju Kang; Juliana Ben; James H Cauraugh; Michael S Okun; Chris J Hass Journal: J Neurol Date: 2016-04-28 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: K K Hill; M C Campbell; M E McNeely; M Karimi; M Ushe; S D Tabbal; T Hershey; H P Flores; J M Hartlein; H M Lugar; F J Revilla; T O Videen; G M Earhart; J S Perlmutter Journal: Exp Neurol Date: 2012-12-19 Impact factor: 5.330
Authors: Harith Akram; Stamatios N Sotiropoulos; Saad Jbabdi; Dejan Georgiev; Philipp Mahlknecht; Jonathan Hyam; Thomas Foltynie; Patricia Limousin; Enrico De Vita; Marjan Jahanshahi; Marwan Hariz; John Ashburner; Tim Behrens; Ludvic Zrinzo Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2017-07-12 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Kelsey A Nestor; Jacob D Jones; Christopher R Butson; Takashi Morishita; Charles E Jacobson; David A Peace; Dennis Chen; Kelly D Foote; Michael S Okun Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-04-01 Impact factor: 3.240