| Literature DB >> 22557991 |
João Massano1, Carolina Garrett.
Abstract
Parkinson's disease is a common and often debilitating disorder, with a growing prevalence accompanying global population aging. Current drug therapy is not satisfactory enough for many patients, especially after a few years of symptom progression. This is mainly due to the motor complications that frequently emerge as disease progresses. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a useful therapeutic option in carefully selected patients that significantly improves motor symptoms, functional status, and quality of life. However, cognitive impairment may limit patient selection for DBS, as patients need to have sufficient mental capabilities in order to understand the procedure, as well as its benefits and limitations, and cooperate with the medical team throughout the process of selection, surgery, and postsurgical follow-up. On the other hand it has been observed that certain aspects of cognitive performance may decline after DBS, namely when the therapeutic target is the widely used subthalamic nucleus. These are important pieces of information for patients, their families, and health care professionals. This manuscript reviews these aspects and their clinical implications.Entities:
Keywords: Parkinson’s disease; cognitive impairment; deep brain stimulation; dementia; functional impairment; globus pallidus interna; quality of life; subthalamic nucleus
Year: 2012 PMID: 22557991 PMCID: PMC3337446 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2012.00066
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurol ISSN: 1664-2295 Impact factor: 4.003
Publications concerning cognitive functioning after deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus in Parkinson’s disease, at the time of last cognitive assessment.
| Publication | Number of patientsa | Follow-upb | Agec | Symptom durationc | Improvement | Worsening | Unchanged |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Limousin et al. ( | 24 | 12 months | 56 | 14.0 | – | – | A/FEx, GCP |
| Ardouin et al. ( | 49 | 3–6 months | 54.7 | 15.1 | A/FEx | L | GCP |
| Pillon et al. ( | 63 | 6–12 months | 55.2 | 14.8 | A/FEx, PMS | L | M |
| Alegret et al. ( | 15 | 3 months | 61.1 | 16.1 | A/FEx, PMS | L, M, VS | – |
| Lopiano et al. ( | 16 | 3 months | 60.7 | 15.4 | – | – | A/FEx, L, M |
| Perozzo et al. ( | 20 | 6 months | 61.6 | 15.4 | – | – | A/FEx, L, M, PMS |
| Volkmann et al. ( | 16 | 12 months | 60.2 | 13.1 | – | – | GCP |
| Daniele et al. ( | 20 | 12–18 months | 57 | 14.2 | GCP, A/FEx | L | M |
| Funkiewiez et al. ( | 50 | 3–48 months | 54.6 | NR | – | – | A/FEx, GCP |
| Krack et al. ( | 49 | 5 years | 55 | 14.6 | – | A/FEx | GCP |
| Funkiewiez et al. ( | 77 | 12–36 months | 55 | 15 | – | L | A/FEx, GCP |
| Hershey et al. ( | 24 | 2–15 months | 63 | 13 | – | A/FEx | – |
| Morrison et al. ( | 17 | 13.3 weeks (average) | 59.9 | 10.8 | – | A/FEx, L | GCP, M, VS |
| Witt et al. ( | 23 | 6–12 months | 57.4 | 15.1 | A/FEx (cognitive flexibility) | A/FEx (response inhibition) | GCP, L |
| Schüpbach et al. ( | 37 | 60 months | 54.9 | 15.2 | – | A/FEx, GCP | – |
| Castelli et al. ( | 72 | 15 months (average) | 60.5 | 15.1 | A/FEx (set shifting) | L | A/FEx (attention, reasoning), M |
| De Gaspari et al. ( | 26 | 15 months (average) | 59.8 | 15.8 | – | L | GCP |
| Deuschl et al. ( | 78 | 6 months | 60 | NR | – | – | GCP |
| Erola et al. ( | 29 | 12 months | 60 | 13 | – | L | A/FEx |
| Smeding et al. ( | 103 | 6 months | 57.9 | 13.7 | – | A/FEx, L, M | – |
| Temel et al. ( | 39 | 13.6 months (average) | 60 | 15.5 | PMS | – | – |
| Aybek et al. ( | 57 | 34.3 months (average) | 63.8 | 15.7 | – | A/FEx, C, M, P (constructive) | L, VS, P (ideomotor) |
| Castelli et al. ( | 19 | 17 months (average) | 62.1 | 14.7 | – | L (phonemic VF) | A/FEx, M, L (semantic VF) |
| Ory-Magne et al. ( | 45 | 24 months | 60 | 13.5 | – | – | A/FEx, L, M |
| Rothlind et al. ( | 19 | 15 months | 61.4 | 12.9 | – | A/FEx (attention, working memory), L | A/FEx (executive functions), M |
| York et al. ( | 23 | 6 months | 59.5 | 12.0 | – | L, M | GCP, A/FEx, VS |
| Heo et al. ( | 46 | 12 months | 58 | 11.4 | – | A/FEx (attention, interference sensitivity), L, M | GCP, A/FEx (reasoning), PMS |
| Witt et al. ( | 60 | 6 months | 60.2 | 13.8 | – | A/FEx, L | GCP, M, VS |
| Denheyer et al. ( | 16 | 16 months (average) | – | L | A/FEx | ||
| Okun et al. ( | 26 | 7 months (average) | 59.8d | 13.3d | – | L (phonemic VF) | L (semantic VF) |
| Zangaglia et al. ( | 32 | 36 months | 58.8 | 11.8 | – | A/FExe, L | GCP, M |
| Fasano et al. ( | 20 | 96 months (average) | 56.9 | 13.7 | – | A/FEx, L, M | GCP |
| Kishore et al. ( | 45 | 5 years | 55.4 | 11.1 | – | – | A/FEx, GCP, L, M, VS |
| Merola et al. ( | 19 | 7.9 years (average) | 61.5 | 22.8 | – | A/FEx, L, M | – |
| Smeding et al. ( | 105 | 12 months | 58.4 | 13 | – | A/FEx, GCP, L, M | – |
| Williams et al. ( | 19 | 2 years | 62.1 | 10.1 | – | L, M | A/FEx, GCP, VS |
Results presented here exclude any cognitive deficits directly attributed to well-defined adverse events (e.g., intraparenchymal hematoma). Further details are provided whenever diverse aspects of the same cognitive domain are differentially impaired in the same study. Legend: .