Journals / Neurological sciences and neurophysiology (Online) / 2020 / Cilt: 37 - Sayı: 4

Management of Hardware Infections in Deep‑Brain Stimulation: A 4‑Year, Single‑Center Experience

Pages
208–214
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Antibiotics and partial removal of the device may be a rational approach.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: The introduction of deep-brain stimulation (DBS) was a milestone in the treatment of movement disorders, intractable epilepsy, and severe psychiatric disorders.
📊
Key Findings & Data:We aimed to identify risk factors for hardware infection in patients with these conditions who underwent DBS at our center over a 4-year period.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Antibiotics and partial removal of the device may be a rational approach.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objectives: The introduction of deep-brain stimulation (DBS) was a milestone in the treatment of movement disorders, intractable epilepsy, and severe psychiatric disorders. We aimed to identify risk factors for hardware infection in patients with these conditions who underwent DBS at our center over a 4-year period. Materials and Methods: Bilateral DBS was performed in seventy patients by the Department of Neurosurgery at the Mersin University School of Medicine between April 2016 and January 2020. The surgical indication was Parkinson’s disease in 48 patients, dystonia in 11 patients (10 primary generalized and 1 secondary), and tremor in 11 patients (10 essential tremor and 1 other). Results: Infection was detected in eight patients (11.4%). There were no hardware complications other than infection or postoperative intracerebral hematomas. The entire device was explanted in four (50%) patients with infection; device explantation occurred at 3, 13, 19, and 42 months after surgery. The other 4 (50%) patients who developed infection were successfully treated with antibiotics without complication. A patient with primary dystonia who underwent bilateral globus pallidus interna DBS sustained a severe acute subdural hematoma due to trauma 45 days after electrode implantation but prior to stimulation. We elected not to explant the device after hematoma evacuation; delayed stimulation programming was successful. Conclusion: DBS surgeries are susceptible to complications related to the anatomic target, hardware, and the procedure itself. Infection is the most common complication; however, there is no established protocol for its treatment. Antibiotics and partial removal of the device may be a rational approach.

🔖

Cite This Article

HAMZAOĞLU, V., ÖZALP, Ö. H., DOĞU, O., ÖKSÜZ, N., SABRİ, A., AKBIYIK, T., DAĞTEKİN, A., EMEL, A., BAĞDATOĞLU, C. (2020). Management of Hardware Infections in Deep‑Brain Stimulation: A 4‑Year, Single‑Center Experience. Neurological sciences and neurophysiology (Online), Cilt: 37 - Sayı: 4, 208–214. https://ajindex.com/articles/290519

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Deuschl G, Schade‑Brittinger C, Krack P, Volkmann J, Schäfer H, Bötzel K; German Parkinson Study Group, et al. Neurostimulation Section: A randomized trial of deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease. N Engl J Med 2006;355:896-908
  2. Teton ZE, Blatt D, AlBakry A, Obayashi J, Ozturk G, Hamzaoglu V, et al. Natural history of neuromodulation devices and therapies: A patient-centered survival analysis. J Neurosurg 2019;19:1-7
  3. Weaver FM, Follett K, Stern M, Hur K, Harris C, Marks WJ Jr., et al. Bilateral deep brain stimulation vs. best medical therapy for patients with advanced Parkinson disease: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2009;301:63-73
  4. Williams A, Gill S, Varma T, Jenkinson C, Quinn N, Mitchell R, et al. Deep brain stimulation plus best medical therapy versus best medical therapy alone for advanced Parkinson’s disease (PD SURG trial): A randomised, open‑label trial. Lancet Neurol 2010;9:581‑91
  5. Bhatia S, Zhang K, Oh M, Angle C, Whiting D. Infections and hardware salvage after deep brain stimulation surgery: A single-center study and review of the literature. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 2010;88:147-55
  6. Bjerknes S, Skogseid IM, Sæhle T, Dietrichs E, Toft M. Surgical site infections after deep brain stimulation surgery: Frequency, characteristics and management in a 10‑year period. PLoS One 2014;9:e105288
  7. Fenoy AJ, Simpson RK Jr. Management of device‑related wound complications in deep brain stimulation surgery. J Neurosurg 2012;116:1324-32
  8. Stenehjem E, Armstrong WS. Central nervous system device infections. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2012;26:89-110
  9. Chan DT, Zhu XL, Yeung JH, Mok VC, Wong E, Lau C, et al. Complications of deep brain stimulation: A collective review. Asian J Surg 2009;32:258-63
  10. Doshi PK. Long‑term surgical and hardware‑related complications of deep brain stimulation. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 2011;89:89-95
  11. Oh MY, Abosch A, Kim SH, Lang AE, Lozano AM. Long‑term hardware-related complications of deep brain stimulation. Neurosurgery 2002;50:1268-74
  12. Narváez‑Martínez Y, Roldán Ramos P, Hoyos JA, Culebras D, Compta Y, Cámara A, et al. Single-center complication analysis associated with surgical replacement of implantable pulse generators in deep brain stimulation. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 2019;97:101-5
  13. Bendok B, Levy R. Brain stimulation for persistent pain management. In: Gildenberg P, Tasker R, editors. Textbook of Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery. New York: McGraw‑Hill; 1998. p