BACKGROUND: Achieving optimal results following deep brain stimulation (DBS) typically involves several months of programming sessions. The Graphical User Interface for DBS Evaluation (GUIDE) study explored whether a visual programming system could help clinicians accurately predetermine ideal stimulation settings in DBS patients with Parkinson's disease. METHODS: A multicenter prospective, observational study was designed that utilized a blinded Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS)-III examination to prospectively assess whether DBS settings derived using a neuroanatomically based computer model (Model) could provide comparable efficacy to those determined through traditional, monopolar review-based programming (Clinical). We retrospectively compared the neuroanatomical regions of stimulation, power consumption and time spent on programming using both methods. RESULTS: The average improvement in UPDRS-III scores was 10.4 ± 7.8 for the Model settings and 11.7 ± 8.7 for the Clinical settings. The difference between the mean UPDRS-III scores with the Model versus the Clinical settings was 0.26 and not statistically significant (p = 0.9866). Power consumption for the Model settings was 48.7 ± 22 μW versus 76.1 ± 46.5 μW for the Clinical settings. The mean time spent programming using the Model approach was 31 ± 16 s versus 41.4 ± 29.1 min using the Clinical approach. CONCLUSION: The Model-based DBS settings provided similar benefit to the Clinical settings based on UPDRS-III scores and were often arrived at in less time and required less power than the Clinical settings.
BACKGROUND: Achieving optimal results following deep brain stimulation (DBS) typically involves several months of programming sessions. The Graphical User Interface for DBS Evaluation (GUIDE) study explored whether a visual programming system could help clinicians accurately predetermine ideal stimulation settings in DBS patients with Parkinson's disease. METHODS: A multicenter prospective, observational study was designed that utilized a blinded Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS)-III examination to prospectively assess whether DBS settings derived using a neuroanatomically based computer model (Model) could provide comparable efficacy to those determined through traditional, monopolar review-based programming (Clinical). We retrospectively compared the neuroanatomical regions of stimulation, power consumption and time spent on programming using both methods. RESULTS: The average improvement in UPDRS-III scores was 10.4 ± 7.8 for the Model settings and 11.7 ± 8.7 for the Clinical settings. The difference between the mean UPDRS-III scores with the Model versus the Clinical settings was 0.26 and not statistically significant (p = 0.9866). Power consumption for the Model settings was 48.7 ± 22 μW versus 76.1 ± 46.5 μW for the Clinical settings. The mean time spent programming using the Model approach was 31 ± 16 s versus 41.4 ± 29.1 min using the Clinical approach. CONCLUSION: The Model-based DBS settings provided similar benefit to the Clinical settings based on UPDRS-III scores and were often arrived at in less time and required less power than the Clinical settings.
Authors: Nora Vanegas-Arroyave; Peter M Lauro; Ling Huang; Mark Hallett; Silvina G Horovitz; Kareem A Zaghloul; Codrin Lungu Journal: Brain Date: 2016-02-26 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Scott F Lempka; Bryan Howell; Kabilar Gunalan; Andre G Machado; Cameron C McIntyre Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Mikhail Milchenko; Abraham Z Snyder; Meghan C Campbell; Joshua L Dowling; Keith M Rich; Lindsey M Brier; Joel S Perlmutter; Scott A Norris Journal: J Neurosci Methods Date: 2018-09-07 Impact factor: 2.390
Authors: Bryan Howell; Faical Isbaine; Jon T Willie; Enrico Opri; Robert E Gross; Coralie De Hemptinne; Philip A Starr; Cameron C McIntyre; Svjetlana Miocinovic Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2021-03-20 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: Till A Dembek; Michael T Barbe; Mattias Åström; Mauritius Hoevels; Veerle Visser-Vandewalle; Gereon R Fink; Lars Timmermann Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2016-11-17 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Anneke M Frankemolle-Gilbert; Bryan Howell; Kelsey L Bower; Peter H Veltink; Tjitske Heida; Cameron C McIntyre Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-12-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Dustin A Heldman; Christopher L Pulliam; Enrique Urrea Mendoza; Maureen Gartner; Joseph P Giuffrida; Erwin B Montgomery; Alberto J Espay; Fredy J Revilla Journal: Neuromodulation Date: 2015-12-01