Intraoperative neurophysiological responses in epileptic patients submitted to hippocampal and thalamic deep brain stimulation.

PURPOSE: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has been used in an increasing frequency for treatment of refractory epilepsy. Acute deep brain macrostimulation intraoperative findings were sparsely published in the literature. We report on our intraoperative macrostimulation findings during thalamic and hippocampal DBS implantation.
METHODS: Eighteen patients were studied. All patients underwent routine pre-operative evaluation that included clinical history, neurological examination, interictal and ictal EEG, high resolution 1.5T MRI and neuropsychological testing. Six patients with temporal lobe epilepsy were submitted to hippocampal DBS (Hip-DBS); 6 patients with focal epilepsy were submitted to anterior thalamic nucleus DBS (AN-DBS) and 6 patients with generalized epilepsy were submitted to centro-median thalamic nucleus DBS (CM-DBS). Age ranged from 9 to 40 years (11 males). All patients were submitted to bilateral quadripolar DBS electrode implantation in a single procedure, under general anesthesia, and intraoperative scalp EEG monitoring. Final electrode's position was checked postoperatively using volumetric CT scanning. Bipolar stimulation using the more proximal and distal electrodes was performed. Final standard stimulation parameters were 6Hz, 4V, 300μs (low frequency range: LF) or 130Hz, 4V, 300μs (high frequency range: HF). KEY
FINDINGS: Bilateral recruiting response (RR) was obtained after unilateral stimulation in all patients submitted to AN and CM-DBS using LF stimulation. RR was widespread but prevailed over the fronto-temporal region bilaterally, and over the stimulated hemisphere. HF stimulation led to background slowing and a DC shift. The mean voltage for the appearance of RR was 4V (CM) and 3V (AN). CM and AN-DBS did not alter inter-ictal spiking frequency or morphology. RR obtained after LF Hip-DBS was restricted to the stimulated temporal lobe and no contralateral activation was noted. HF stimulation yielded no visually recognizable EEG modification. Mean intensity for initial appearance of RR was 3V. In 5 of the 6 patients submitted to Hip-DBS, an increase in inter-ictal spiking was noted unilaterally immediately after electrode insertion. Intraoperative LF stimulation did not modify temporal lobe spiking; on the other hand, HF was effective in abolishing inter-ictal spiking in 4 of the 6 patients studied. There was no immediate morbidity or mortality in this series. SIGNIFICANCE: Macrostimulation might be used to confirm that the hardware was working properly. There was no typical RR derived from each studied thalamic nuclei after LF stimulation. On the other hand, absence of such RRs was highly suggestive of hardware malfunction or inadequate targeting. Thalamic-DBS (Th-DBS) RR was always bilateral after unilateral stimulation, although they somehow prevailed over the stimulated hemisphere. Contrary to Th-DBS, Hip-DBS gave rise to localized RR over the ipsolateral temporal neocortex, and absence of this response might very likely be related to inadequate targeting or hardware failure. Increased spiking was seen over temporal neocortex during hippocampal electrode insertion; this might point to the more epileptogenic hippocampal region in each individual patient. We did not notice any intraoperative response difference among patients with temporal lobe epilepsy with or without MTS. The relationship between these intraoperative findings and seizure outcome is not yet clear and should be further evaluated. 2011 British Epilepsy Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.