Johannes Vorwerk1, Andrea A Brock, Daria N Anderson, John D Rolston, Christopher R Butson. 1. Scientific Computing & Imaging (SCI) Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, United States of America. Institute of Electrical and Biomedical Engineering, UMIT-Private University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We performed a retrospective analysis of an optimization algorithm for the computation of patient-specific multipolar stimulation configurations employing multiple independent current/voltage sources. We evaluated whether the obtained stimulation configurations align with clinical data and whether the optimized stimulation configurations have the potential to lead to an equal or better stimulation of the target region as manual programming, while reducing the time required for programming sessions. APPROACH: For three patients (five electrodes) diagnosed with essential tremor, we derived optimized multipolar stimulation configurations using an approach that is suitable for the application in clinical practice. To evaluate the automatically derived stimulation settings, we compared them to the results of the monopolar review. MAIN RESULTS: We observe a good agreement between the findings of the monopolar review and the optimized stimulation configurations, with the algorithm assigning the maximal voltage in the optimized multipolar pattern to the contact that was found to lead to the best therapeutic effect in the clinical monopolar review in all cases. Additionally, our simulation results predict that the optimized stimulation settings lead to the activation of an equal or larger volume fraction of the target compared to the manually determined settings in all cases. SIGNIFICANCE: Our results demonstrate the feasibility of an automatic determination of optimal DBS configurations and motivate a further evaluation of the applied optimization algorithm.
OBJECTIVE: We performed a retrospective analysis of an optimization algorithm for the computation of patient-specific multipolar stimulation configurations employing multiple independent current/voltage sources. We evaluated whether the obtained stimulation configurations align with clinical data and whether the optimized stimulation configurations have the potential to lead to an equal or better stimulation of the target region as manual programming, while reducing the time required for programming sessions. APPROACH: For three patients (five electrodes) diagnosed with essential tremor, we derived optimized multipolar stimulation configurations using an approach that is suitable for the application in clinical practice. To evaluate the automatically derived stimulation settings, we compared them to the results of the monopolar review. MAIN RESULTS: We observe a good agreement between the findings of the monopolar review and the optimized stimulation configurations, with the algorithm assigning the maximal voltage in the optimized multipolar pattern to the contact that was found to lead to the best therapeutic effect in the clinical monopolar review in all cases. Additionally, our simulation results predict that the optimized stimulation settings lead to the activation of an equal or larger volume fraction of the target compared to the manually determined settings in all cases. SIGNIFICANCE: Our results demonstrate the feasibility of an automatic determination of optimal DBS configurations and motivate a further evaluation of the applied optimization algorithm.
Authors: Kees J van Dijk; Rens Verhagen; Ashutosh Chaturvedi; Cameron C McIntyre; Lo J Bour; Ciska Heida; Peter H Veltink Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2015-05-28 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: Collin J Anderson; Daria Nesterovich Anderson; Stefan M Pulst; Christopher R Butson; Alan D Dorval Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2020-04-09 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: A L Benabid; P Pollak; C Gervason; D Hoffmann; D M Gao; M Hommel; J E Perret; J de Rougemont Journal: Lancet Date: 1991-02-16 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: David T Brocker; Brandon D Swan; Rosa Q So; Dennis A Turner; Robert E Gross; Warren M Grill Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2017-01-04 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Martin M Reich; Joachim Brumberg; Nicolò G Pozzi; Giorgio Marotta; Jonas Roothans; Mattias Åström; Thomas Musacchio; Leonardo Lopiano; Michele Lanotte; Ralph Lehrke; Andreas K Buck; Jens Volkmann; Ioannis U Isaias Journal: Brain Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Collin J Anderson; Daria Nesterovich Anderson; Stefan M Pulst; Christopher R Butson; Alan D Dorval Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2020-04-09 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: Kara A Johnson; Gordon Duffley; Daria Nesterovich Anderson; Jill L Ostrem; Marie-Laure Welter; Juan Carlos Baldermann; Jens Kuhn; Daniel Huys; Veerle Visser-Vandewalle; Thomas Foltynie; Ludvic Zrinzo; Marwan Hariz; Albert F G Leentjens; Alon Y Mogilner; Michael H Pourfar; Leonardo Almeida; Aysegul Gunduz; Kelly D Foote; Michael S Okun; Christopher R Butson Journal: Brain Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Sergey N Makarov; Laleh Golestanirad; William A Wartman; Bach Thanh Nguyen; Gregory M Noetscher; Jyrki P Ahveninen; Kyoko Fujimoto; Konstantin Weise; Aapo R Nummenmaa Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2021-08-19 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Gordon Duffley; Daria Nesterovich Anderson; Johannes Vorwerk; Alan D Dorval; Christopher R Butson Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2019-10-29 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: Daria Nesterovich Anderson; Alan D Dorval; John D Rolston; Stefan M Pulst; Collin J Anderson Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2021-04-06 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: Brian L Edlow; Leandro R D Sanz; Robert D Stevens; Olivia Gosseries; Len Polizzotto; Nader Pouratian; John D Rolston; Samuel B Snider; Aurore Thibaut Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2021-07-08 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Gordon Duffley; Barbara J Lutz; Aniko Szabo; Adrienne Wright; Christopher W Hess; Adolfo Ramirez-Zamora; Pamela Zeilman; Shannon Chiu; Kelly D Foote; Michael S Okun; Christopher R Butson Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2021-08-01 Impact factor: 29.907