OBJECTIVE: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the subthalamic nucleus (STN) improves motor function, including gait and stability, in people with Parkinson's disease (PD) but differences in DBS contact locations within the STN may contribute to variability in the degree of improvement. Based on anatomical connectivity, dorsal STN may be preferentially involved in motor function and ventral STN in cognitive function. METHODS: To determine whether dorsal DBS affects gait and balance more than ventral DBS, a double blind evaluation of 23 PD patients with bilateral STN DBS was conducted. Each participant underwent gait analysis and balance testing off Parkinson's medication under three DBS conditions (unilateral DBS in the dorsal STN region, unilateral DBS in the ventral STN region and both stimulators off) on 1 day. RESULTS: Improvements were seen in Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS)-III scores and velocity in walking trials as fast as possible (Fast gait) and preferred pace (Pref gait), as well as stride length for Fast and Pref gait, with dorsal and ventral stimulation compared with the off condition (post hoc tests, p<0.05). However, there were no differences with dorsal compared to ventral stimulation. Balance, assessed using the multi-item mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (mini-BESTest), was similar across conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Absence of differences in gait and balance between the dorsal and ventral conditions suggests motor connections involved in gait and balance may be more diffusely distributed in STN than previously thought, as opposed to neural connections involved in cognitive processes, such as response inhibition, which are more affected by ventral stimulation.
OBJECTIVE: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the subthalamic nucleus (STN) improves motor function, including gait and stability, in people with Parkinson's disease (PD) but differences in DBS contact locations within the STN may contribute to variability in the degree of improvement. Based on anatomical connectivity, dorsal STN may be preferentially involved in motor function and ventral STN in cognitive function. METHODS: To determine whether dorsal DBS affects gait and balance more than ventral DBS, a double blind evaluation of 23 PDpatients with bilateral STN DBS was conducted. Each participant underwent gait analysis and balance testing off Parkinson's medication under three DBS conditions (unilateral DBS in the dorsal STN region, unilateral DBS in the ventral STN region and both stimulators off) on 1 day. RESULTS: Improvements were seen in Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS)-III scores and velocity in walking trials as fast as possible (Fast gait) and preferred pace (Pref gait), as well as stride length for Fast and Pref gait, with dorsal and ventral stimulation compared with the off condition (post hoc tests, p<0.05). However, there were no differences with dorsal compared to ventral stimulation. Balance, assessed using the multi-item mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (mini-BESTest), was similar across conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Absence of differences in gait and balance between the dorsal and ventral conditions suggests motor connections involved in gait and balance may be more diffusely distributed in STN than previously thought, as opposed to neural connections involved in cognitive processes, such as response inhibition, which are more affected by ventral stimulation.
Authors: Jerzy L Slowinski; John D Putzke; Ryan J Uitti; John A Lucas; Margaret F Turk; Bruce A Kall; Robert E Wharen Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Sarah A Eisenstein; Jonathan M Koller; Kathleen D Black; Meghan C Campbell; Heather M Lugar; Mwiza Ushe; Samer D Tabbal; Morvarid Karimi; Tamara Hershey; Joel S Perlmutter; Kevin J Black Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2014-07-02 Impact factor: 10.422
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: 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: Jutta S Mayer; Joseph Neimat; Bradley S Folley; Sarah K Bourne; Peter E Konrad; David Charles; Sohee Park Journal: Neurocase Date: 2016-06-23 Impact factor: 0.881
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: Sinem Balta Beylergil; Angela M Noecker; Mikkel Petersen; Palak Gupta; Sarah Ozinga; Mark F Walker; Camilla Kilbane; Cameron C McIntyre; Aasef G Shaikh Journal: J Neurol Date: 2021-05-18 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Scott E Cooper; Klaus G Driesslein; Angela M Noecker; Cameron C McIntyre; Andre M Machado; Christopher R Butson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-08-06 Impact factor: 3.240