INTRODUCTION: With the advent of rechargeable internal neural stimulators (rINS) for deep brain stimulation, our aim was to survey patient satisfaction and clinical efficacy in an early cohort of patients receiving this new technology. METHODS: This is an observational study on nine patients with rINS. All patients had initially received non-rechargeable INS with established efficacy of their deep brain stimulation system for either dystonia or pain. Patient satisfaction and efficacy with their rINS were established by completion of a questionnaire, a quality of life assessment (SF-36), and calculation of the total electrical energy delivered (TEED) by the rINS. RESULTS: A reduction in efficacy of their rINS was noticed in 22% of patients. In 78% of patients, there was a problem with recharging their rINS because of poor contact. Two patients (22%) felt that recharging the rINS interfered with their lives and it was a daily reminder that they had a deep brain stimulator system in situ. Eight out of nine patients (89%), however, would recommend to other patients to have an rINS. CONCLUSION: Most patients were happy with their rechargeable internal neural stimulator. A reduction in efficacy was noticed in 22% of patients, which is similar to the proportion of patients noticing a reduction in efficacy when replacing with a non-rechargeable system. Thus, all patients require close monitoring post-replacement of rINS, in case possible adjustment of parameters is required.
INTRODUCTION: With the advent of rechargeable internal neural stimulators (rINS) for deep brain stimulation, our aim was to survey patient satisfaction and clinical efficacy in an early cohort of patients receiving this new technology. METHODS: This is an observational study on nine patients with rINS. All patients had initially received non-rechargeable INS with established efficacy of their deep brain stimulation system for either dystonia or pain. Patient satisfaction and efficacy with their rINS were established by completion of a questionnaire, a quality of life assessment (SF-36), and calculation of the total electrical energy delivered (TEED) by the rINS. RESULTS: A reduction in efficacy of their rINS was noticed in 22% of patients. In 78% of patients, there was a problem with recharging their rINS because of poor contact. Two patients (22%) felt that recharging the rINS interfered with their lives and it was a daily reminder that they had a deep brain stimulator system in situ. Eight out of nine patients (89%), however, would recommend to other patients to have an rINS. CONCLUSION: Most patients were happy with their rechargeable internal neural stimulator. A reduction in efficacy was noticed in 22% of patients, which is similar to the proportion of patients noticing a reduction in efficacy when replacing with a non-rechargeable system. Thus, all patients require close monitoring post-replacement of rINS, in case possible adjustment of parameters is required.
Authors: Kyle T Mitchell; Monica Volz; Aaron Lee; Marta San Luciano; Sarah Wang; Philip A Starr; Paul Larson; Nicholas B Galifianakis; Jill L Ostrem Journal: Stereotact Funct Neurosurg Date: 2019-07-09 Impact factor: 1.875
Authors: Bertil Blok; Philip Van Kerrebroeck; Stephan de Wachter; Alain Ruffion; Frank Van der Aa; Marie Aimée Perrouin-Verbe; Sohier Elneil Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2020-04-03 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Kevin Benson; Rebecca McCrery; Chris Taylor; Osvaldo Padron; Bertil Blok; Stefan de Wachter; Andrea Pezzella; Jennifer Gruenenfelder; Mahreen Pakzad; Marie-Aimee Perrouin-Verbe; Philip Van Kerrebroeck; Jeffrey Mangel; Kenneth Peters; Michael Kennelly; Andrew Shapiro; Una Lee; Craig Comiter; Margaret Mueller; Howard Goldman; Felicia Lane Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2020-04-27 Impact factor: 2.696