Alon Kashanian1, Pratik Rohatgi1, Srinivas Chivukula1, Sameer A Sheth2, Nader Pouratian1. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: When evaluating deep brain stimulation (DBS) for newer indications, patients may benefit from trial stimulation prior to permanent implantation or for investigatory purposes. Although several case series have evaluated infectious complications among DBS patients who underwent trials with external hardware, outcomes have been inconsistent. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a period of lead externalization is associated with an increased risk of infection. METHODS: We conducted a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses compliant systematic review of all studies that included rates of infection for patients who were externalized prior to DBS implantation. A meta-analysis of proportions was performed to estimate the pooled proportion of infection across studies, and a meta-analysis of relative risks was conducted on those studies that included a control group of nonexternalized patients. Heterogeneity across studies was assessed via I2 index. RESULTS: Our search retrieved 23 articles, comprising 1354 patients who underwent lead externalization. The pooled proportion of infection was 6.9% (95% CI: 4.7%-9.5%), with a moderate to high level of heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 62.2%; 95% CI: 40.7-75.9; P < .0001). A total of 3 studies, comprising 212 externalized patients, included a control group. Rate of infection in externalized patients was 5.2% as compared to 6.0% in nonexternalized patients. However, meta-analysis was inadequately powered to determine whether there was indeed no difference in infection rate between the groups. CONCLUSION: The rate of infection in patients with electrode externalization is comparable to that reported in the literature for DBS implantation without a trial period. Future studies are needed before this information can be confidently used in the clinical setting.
BACKGROUND: When evaluating deep brain stimulation (DBS) for newer indications, patients may benefit from trial stimulation prior to permanent implantation or for investigatory purposes. Although several case series have evaluated infectious complications among DBS patients who underwent trials with external hardware, outcomes have been inconsistent. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a period of lead externalization is associated with an increased risk of infection. METHODS: We conducted a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses compliant systematic review of all studies that included rates of infection for patients who were externalized prior to DBS implantation. A meta-analysis of proportions was performed to estimate the pooled proportion of infection across studies, and a meta-analysis of relative risks was conducted on those studies that included a control group of nonexternalized patients. Heterogeneity across studies was assessed via I2 index. RESULTS: Our search retrieved 23 articles, comprising 1354 patients who underwent lead externalization. The pooled proportion of infection was 6.9% (95% CI: 4.7%-9.5%), with a moderate to high level of heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 62.2%; 95% CI: 40.7-75.9; P < .0001). A total of 3 studies, comprising 212 externalized patients, included a control group. Rate of infection in externalized patients was 5.2% as compared to 6.0% in nonexternalized patients. However, meta-analysis was inadequately powered to determine whether there was indeed no difference in infection rate between the groups. CONCLUSION: The rate of infection in patients with electrode externalization is comparable to that reported in the literature for DBS implantation without a trial period. Future studies are needed before this information can be confidently used in the clinical setting.
Authors: S Bojanic; H Sethi; J Hyam; J Yianni; D Nandi; C Joint; H Carter; R Gregory; P Bain; T Z Aziz Journal: J Clin Neurosci Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 1.961
Authors: Michael R DeLong; Kevin T Huang; John Gallis; Yuliya Lokhnygina; Beth Parente; Patrick Hickey; Dennis A Turner; Shivanand P Lad Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: J H Mehrkens; K Bötzel; U Steude; K Zeitler; A Schnitzler; V Sturm; J Voges Journal: Stereotact Funct Neurosurg Date: 2008-11-27 Impact factor: 1.875
Authors: Ruth R Franco; Erich T Fonoff; Pedro G Alvarenga; Eduardo J L Alho; Antonio Carlos Lopes; Marcelo Q Hoexter; Marcelo C Batistuzzo; Raquel R Paiva; Anita Taub; Roseli G Shavitt; Euripides C Miguel; Manoel J Teixeira; Durval Damiani; Clement Hamani Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2018-11-02
Authors: Sameer A Sheth; Kelly R Bijanki; Brian Metzger; Anusha Allawala; Victoria Pirtle; Joshua A Adkinson; John Myers; Raissa K Mathura; Denise Oswalt; Evangelia Tsolaki; Jiayang Xiao; Angela Noecker; Adriana M Strutt; Jeffrey F Cohn; Cameron C McIntyre; Sanjay J Mathew; David Borton; Wayne Goodman; Nader Pouratian Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2021-11-22 Impact factor: 12.810
Authors: Brittany Liebenow; Michelle Williams; Thomas Wilson; Ihtsham Ul Haq; Mustafa S Siddiqui; Adrian W Laxton; Stephen B Tatter; Kenneth T Kishida Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-08-22 Impact factor: 3.752