Sabine Bruno1,2, Petyo Nikolov1,2, Christian J Hartmann1,2, Carlos Trenado2, Philipp J Slotty3, Jan Vesper3, Alfons Schnitzler1,2, Stefan J Groiss1,2. 1. Department of Neurology, Medical Faculty, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany. 2. Institute of Clinical Neuroscience and Medical Psychology, Medical Faculty, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany. 3. Department of Functional Neurosurgery and Stereotaxy, Medical Faculty, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the posterior subthalamic area (PSA) and the ventral intermediate thalamic nucleus (VIM) is a well-established therapy for essential tremor (ET), but it is frequently associated with side effects like dysarthria or gait ataxia. Directional DBS (dDBS) may be a way to activate fiber tracts more selectively. Is dDBS for ET superior to omnidirectional DBS (oDBS) regarding therapeutic window and clinically as effective as oDBS? MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten patients with ET treated with PSA/VIM-DBS were recruited. Therapeutic window served as primary outcome parameter; clinical efficacy, volume of neuronal activation, and total electrical energy delivered (TEED) served as secondary outcome parameters. Therapeutic window was calculated for all three dDBS directions and for oDBS by determining therapeutic thresholds and side effect thresholds. Clinical efficacy was assessed by comparing the effect of best dDBS and oDBS on tremor and ataxia rating scales, and accelerometry. Volume of neural activation and TEED were also calculated for both paradigms. RESULTS: For best dDBS, therapeutic window was wider and therapeutic threshold was lower compared to oDBS. While side effect threshold did not differ, volume of neural activation was larger for dDBS. In terms of clinical efficacy, dDBS was as effective as oDBS. CONCLUSIONS: dDBS for ET widens therapeutic window due to reduction of therapeutic threshold. Larger volume of neural activation for dDBS at side effect threshold supports the notion of persistent directionality even at higher intensities. dDBS may compensate for slightly misplaced leads and should be considered first line for PSA/VIM-DBS.
OBJECTIVES: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the posterior subthalamic area (PSA) and the ventral intermediate thalamic nucleus (VIM) is a well-established therapy for essential tremor (ET), but it is frequently associated with side effects like dysarthria or gait ataxia. Directional DBS (dDBS) may be a way to activate fiber tracts more selectively. Is dDBS for ET superior to omnidirectional DBS (oDBS) regarding therapeutic window and clinically as effective as oDBS? MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten patients with ET treated with PSA/VIM-DBS were recruited. Therapeutic window served as primary outcome parameter; clinical efficacy, volume of neuronal activation, and total electrical energy delivered (TEED) served as secondary outcome parameters. Therapeutic window was calculated for all three dDBS directions and for oDBS by determining therapeutic thresholds and side effect thresholds. Clinical efficacy was assessed by comparing the effect of best dDBS and oDBS on tremor and ataxia rating scales, and accelerometry. Volume of neural activation and TEED were also calculated for both paradigms. RESULTS: For best dDBS, therapeutic window was wider and therapeutic threshold was lower compared to oDBS. While side effect threshold did not differ, volume of neural activation was larger for dDBS. In terms of clinical efficacy, dDBS was as effective as oDBS. CONCLUSIONS: dDBS for ET widens therapeutic window due to reduction of therapeutic threshold. Larger volume of neural activation for dDBS at side effect threshold supports the notion of persistent directionality even at higher intensities. dDBS may compensate for slightly misplaced leads and should be considered first line for PSA/VIM-DBS.
Authors: Jean-Philippe Lévy; T A Khoa Nguyen; Lenard Lachenmayer; Ines Debove; Gerd Tinkhauser; Katrin Petermann; Alba Segura Amil; Joan Michelis; Michael Schüpbach; Andreas Nowacki; Claudio Pollo Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2020-11-02 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Nadja Kvernmo; Ane E Konglund; Martin M Reich; Jonas Roothans; Are H Pripp; Espen Dietrichs; Jens Volkmann; Inger Marie Skogseid Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2022-03-14 Impact factor: 11.274
Authors: Maija Koivu; Filip Scheperjans; Johanna Eerola-Rautio; Nuutti Vartiainen; Julio Resendiz-Nieves; Riku Kivisaari; Eero Pekkonen Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-07-27
Authors: Myung Ji Kim; Kyung Won Chang; So Hee Park; Won Seok Chang; Hyun Ho Jung; Jin Woo Chang Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2021-06-09 Impact factor: 4.003