Nicholas Gravbrot1, Aaron Burket1, Manojkumar Saranathan2, Willard S Kasoff1. 1. Department of Neurosurgery University of Arizona College of Medicine Tucson Arizona USA. 2. Department of Medical Imaging University of Arizona College of Medicine Tucson Arizona USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Literature on asleep deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the ventralis intermedius (Vim) nucleus in essential tremor is relatively sparse. Furthermore, controversy exists as to whether indirect ("consensus" or "atlas-based") targeting of the Vim requires physiologic adjustment for effective clinical outcomes in DBS surgery. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical results of asleep Vim DBS using indirect coordinates and real-time interventional magnetic resonance imaging guidance. METHODS: Retrospective review of a prospectively collected database was performed to identify patients with essential tremor undergoing asleep Vim DBS using interventional magnetic resonance imaging guidance. Stereotactic and clinical outcomes were abstracted and analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 12 consecutive patients were identified, all of whom were available for 6-month clinical follow-up. Stereotactic (radial) error was 0.5 ± 0.2 mm on the left and 0.5 ± 0.3 mm on the right. Fahn-Tolosa-Marin tremor scores in the treated limb(s) decreased by 71.2% ± 31.0% (P = 0.0088), The Essential Tremor Rating Assessment Scale activities of daily living improved by 74.9% ± 23.7% (P < 0.0001), and The Essential Tremor Rating Assessment Scale performance improved by 64.3 ± 16.2% (P = 0.0004). Surgical complications were mild and generally transient. Stimulation-related side effects were similar to those reported in historical series of awake Vim DBS. CONCLUSIONS: Asleep Vim DBS using indirect targeting and interventional magnetic resonance imaging-guided placement is safe and effective, with 6-month clinical results similar to those achieved with awake placement. These data support the use of asleep surgery in essential tremor and represent a baseline for comparison with future studies using more advanced targeting techniques.
BACKGROUND: Literature on asleep deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the ventralis intermedius (Vim) nucleus in essential tremor is relatively sparse. Furthermore, controversy exists as to whether indirect ("consensus" or "atlas-based") targeting of the Vim requires physiologic adjustment for effective clinical outcomes in DBS surgery. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical results of asleep Vim DBS using indirect coordinates and real-time interventional magnetic resonance imaging guidance. METHODS: Retrospective review of a prospectively collected database was performed to identify patients with essential tremor undergoing asleep Vim DBS using interventional magnetic resonance imaging guidance. Stereotactic and clinical outcomes were abstracted and analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 12 consecutive patients were identified, all of whom were available for 6-month clinical follow-up. Stereotactic (radial) error was 0.5 ± 0.2 mm on the left and 0.5 ± 0.3 mm on the right. Fahn-Tolosa-Marin tremor scores in the treated limb(s) decreased by 71.2% ± 31.0% (P = 0.0088), The Essential Tremor Rating Assessment Scale activities of daily living improved by 74.9% ± 23.7% (P < 0.0001), and The Essential Tremor Rating Assessment Scale performance improved by 64.3 ± 16.2% (P = 0.0004). Surgical complications were mild and generally transient. Stimulation-related side effects were similar to those reported in historical series of awake Vim DBS. CONCLUSIONS: Asleep Vim DBS using indirect targeting and interventional magnetic resonance imaging-guided placement is safe and effective, with 6-month clinical results similar to those achieved with awake placement. These data support the use of asleep surgery in essential tremor and represent a baseline for comparison with future studies using more advanced targeting techniques.
Authors: Dongyang Zhang; Abraham Z Snyder; Joshua S Shimony; Michael D Fox; Marcus E Raichle Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2009-09-03 Impact factor: 5.357
Authors: Jason H Su; Francis T Thomas; Willard S Kasoff; Thomas Tourdias; Eun Young Choi; Brian K Rutt; Manojkumar Saranathan Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2019-03-17 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Riaz A Agha; Mimi R Borrelli; Reem Farwana; Kiron Koshy; Alexander J Fowler; Dennis P Orgill Journal: Int J Surg Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 6.071
Authors: Philip A Starr; Leslie C Markun; Paul S Larson; Monica M Volz; Alastair J Martin; Jill L Ostrem Journal: J Neurosurg Pediatr Date: 2014-08-01 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Zaman Mirzadeh; Kristina Chapple; Margaret Lambert; Virgilio G Evidente; Padma Mahant; Maria C Ospina; Johan Samanta; Guillermo Moguel-Cobos; Naomi Salins; Abraham Lieberman; Alexander I Tröster; Rohit Dhall; Francisco A Ponce Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2015-10-09 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Robert Francis Dallapiazza; Darrin J Lee; Philippe De Vloo; Anton Fomenko; Clement Hamani; Mojgan Hodaie; Suneil K Kalia; Alfonso Fasano; Andres M Lozano Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2018-10-18 Impact factor: 10.154