Takashi Tsuboi1,2, Joshua K Wong3, Leonardo Almeida3, Christopher W Hess3, Aparna Wagle Shukla3, Kelly D Foote4, Michael S Okun3, Adolfo Ramirez-Zamora3. 1. Department of Neurology, Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases, University of Florida, 3009 SW Williston Road, Gainesville, FL, 32608, USA. takashi80@gmail.com. 2. Department of Neurology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan. takashi80@gmail.com. 3. Department of Neurology, Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases, University of Florida, 3009 SW Williston Road, Gainesville, FL, 32608, USA. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyze deep brain stimulation (DBS) outcomes in patients with cervical dystonia (CD), the relationships between motor and disability/pain outcomes, and the differences in outcomes between globus pallidus internus (GPi) and subthalamic nucleus (STN) DBS, and to identify potential outcome predictors. METHODS: A systematic literature search identified individual patient data of CD patients who underwent DBS and whose outcomes were assessed with the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS). Then, we performed a pooled meta-analysis on this cohort. RESULTS: A review of 39 papers yielded 208 patients with individual TWSTRS scores and demographic information. At a mean follow-up period of 23.3 months after either GPi or STN DBS, the TWSTRS total (58.8%), severity (53.9%), disability (61.3%), and pain (46.6%) scores significantly improved compared to baseline status (all p < 0.001). There were no significant outcome differences between short-term (< 23.3 months) and long-term (≥ 23.3 months). The TWSTRS outcomes after GPi and STN DBS were comparable, whereas these two targets showed different adverse effect profiles. The rates of responders to DBS according to the TWSTRS total and severity (defined as ≥ 25% improvement) were both 89%. Regression analyses demonstrated motor benefits associated with disability improvement more than pain relief (R2 = 0.345 and 0.195, respectively). No clinically meaningful predictors for DBS outcomes were identified. CONCLUSION: DBS improves motor symptoms, disability, and pain in CD patients and may provide sustained benefits over 2 years. GPi and STN appear to be equally effective targets with different adverse effect profiles.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze deep brain stimulation (DBS) outcomes in patients with cervical dystonia (CD), the relationships between motor and disability/pain outcomes, and the differences in outcomes between globus pallidus internus (GPi) and subthalamic nucleus (STN) DBS, and to identify potential outcome predictors. METHODS: A systematic literature search identified individual patient data of CDpatients who underwent DBS and whose outcomes were assessed with the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS). Then, we performed a pooled meta-analysis on this cohort. RESULTS: A review of 39 papers yielded 208 patients with individual TWSTRS scores and demographic information. At a mean follow-up period of 23.3 months after either GPi or STN DBS, the TWSTRS total (58.8%), severity (53.9%), disability (61.3%), and pain (46.6%) scores significantly improved compared to baseline status (all p < 0.001). There were no significant outcome differences between short-term (< 23.3 months) and long-term (≥ 23.3 months). The TWSTRS outcomes after GPi and STN DBS were comparable, whereas these two targets showed different adverse effect profiles. The rates of responders to DBS according to the TWSTRS total and severity (defined as ≥ 25% improvement) were both 89%. Regression analyses demonstrated motor benefits associated with disability improvement more than pain relief (R2 = 0.345 and 0.195, respectively). No clinically meaningful predictors for DBS outcomes were identified. CONCLUSION: DBS improves motor symptoms, disability, and pain in CDpatients and may provide sustained benefits over 2 years. GPi and STN appear to be equally effective targets with different adverse effect profiles.
Authors: Jens Volkmann; Joerg Mueller; Günther Deuschl; Andrea A Kühn; Joachim K Krauss; Werner Poewe; Lars Timmermann; Daniela Falk; Andreas Kupsch; Anatol Kivi; Gerd-Helge Schneider; Alfons Schnitzler; Martin Südmeyer; Jürgen Voges; Alexander Wolters; Matthias Wittstock; Jan-Uwe Müller; Sascha Hering; Wilhelm Eisner; Jan Vesper; Thomas Prokop; Marcus Pinsker; Christoph Schrader; Manja Kloss; Karl Kiening; Kai Boetzel; Jan Mehrkens; Inger Marie Skogseid; Jon Ramm-Pettersen; Georg Kemmler; Kailash P Bhatia; Jerrold L Vitek; Reiner Benecke Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2014-08-07 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Richard A Walsh; Christos Sidiropoulos; Andres M Lozano; Mojgan Hodaie; Yu-Yan Poon; Melanie Fallis; Elena Moro Journal: Brain Date: 2013-02-18 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Christian Blahak; Marc E Wolf; Assel Saryyeva; Hansjoerg Baezner; Joachim K Krauss Journal: J Neural Transm (Vienna) Date: 2021-07-06 Impact factor: 3.575
Authors: Alfonso E Martinez-Nunez; Christos Sidiropoulos; Julia Wall; Jason Schwalb; Ellen Air; Peter LeWitt; Bisena Bulica; Patricia Kaminski; Neepa Patel Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-08-05 Impact factor: 4.086