Microelectrode Recording for Deep Brain Stimulation of the Subthalamic Nucleus in Patients with Advanced Parkinson’s Disease: Advantage or Loss of Time?
However, during surgery, it provides real-timeinformation on the electrodes’ neurophysiological locations and helps the surgical team choose an alternative target if the plannedtarget does not produce satisfying results.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:AIM: To investigate the effect of using microelectrode recording (MER) on the length of time required to carry out a deep brainstimulation (DBS) procedure of the subthalamic nucleus in patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD).MATERIAL and METHODS: The time required to include MER in the DBS operation was calculated for the first and second sidesin 24 patients with PD.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The number of microelectrodes used on each trajectory for the first and second sides, and the percentageof permanent electrodes implanted on each trajectory for the first and second sides, were quantified.RESULTS: The average times taken to use MER were 23.4 ± 6.2 minutes, 17.4 ± 6.5 minutes, and 41.2 ± 6.3 minutes for the firstside, second side and total procedure, respectively.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:However, during surgery, it provides real-timeinformation on the electrodes’ neurophysiological locations and helps the surgical team choose an alternative target if the plannedtarget does not produce satisfying results.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters
Özet
AIM: To investigate the effect of using microelectrode recording (MER) on the length of time required to carry out a deep brainstimulation (DBS) procedure of the subthalamic nucleus in patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD).MATERIAL and METHODS: The time required to include MER in the DBS operation was calculated for the first and second sidesin 24 patients with PD. The number of microelectrodes used on each trajectory for the first and second sides, and the percentageof permanent electrodes implanted on each trajectory for the first and second sides, were quantified.RESULTS: The average times taken to use MER were 23.4 ± 6.2 minutes, 17.4 ± 6.5 minutes, and 41.2 ± 6.3 minutes for the firstside, second side and total procedure, respectively. In 75% of patients, the permanent electrode was implanted at the plannedtarget site for the first side, and in 61% of patients for the second side.CONCLUSION: MER extends the time required to carry out the DBS procedure. However, during surgery, it provides real-timeinformation on the electrodes’ neurophysiological locations and helps the surgical team choose an alternative target if the plannedtarget does not produce satisfying results.
🔖
Cite This Article
KOCABICAK, E., ALPTEKIN, O., AYGÜN, D., YILDIZ, O., TEMEL, Y. (2019). Microelectrode Recording for Deep Brain Stimulation of the Subthalamic Nucleus in Patients with Advanced Parkinson’s Disease: Advantage or Loss of Time?. Turkish Neurosurgery, Cilt: 29 - Sayı: 5, 677–682. https://ajindex.com/articles/405291
Ben-Haim S, Asaad WF, Gale JT, Eskandar EN: Risk factors for hemorrhage during microelectrode-guided deep brain stimulation and the introduction of an improved microelectrode design. Neurosurgery 64(4):754-763, 2009 2. Benabid AL, Pollak P, Gao D, Hoffmann D, Limousin P, Gay E, Payen I, Benazzouz A: Chronic electrical stimulation of the ventralis intermedius nucleus of the thalamus as a treatment of movement disorders. J Neurosurg 84(2):203-214, 1996 3. Beric A, Kelly PJ, Rezai A, Sterio D, Mogilner A, Zonenshayn M, Kopell B: Complications of deep brain stimulation surgery. Stereotact. Funct Neurosurg 77(1-4):73-78, 2001 4. Binder DK, Rau G, Starr PA: Hemorrhagic complications of microelectrode-guided deep brain stimulation. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 80(1-4):28-31, 2003 5. Blomstedt P, Hariz M: Hardware-related complications of deep brain stimulation: A ten year experience. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 147(10):1061-1064, 2005 6. Bour LJ, Contarino MF, Foncke EM, de Bie RM, van den Munckhof P, Speelman JD, Schuurman PR: Long-term experience with intraoperative microrecording during DBS neurosurgery in STN and GPi. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 152(12):2069-2077, 2010 7. Deuschl G, Schade-Brittinger C, Krack P, Volkmann J, Schäfer H, Bötzel K, Daniels C, Deutschländer A, Dillmann U, Eisner W: A randomized trial of deep-brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease. N Engl J Med 355(9):896-908, 2006 8. Doshi PK: Long-term surgical and hardware-related complications of deep brain stimulation. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 89(2):89-95, 2011 9. Hariz MI: Complications of deep brain stimulation surgery. Mov Disord 17 Suppl 3:S162-166, 2002 10. Hariz MI: Safety and risk of microelectrode recording in surgery for movement disorders. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 78(3-4):146-157, 2002 11. Janssen ML, Duits AA, Tourai AM, Ackermans L, Leentjes AF, van Kranen-Mastenbroek V, Oosterloo M, VisserVandewalle V, Temel Y: Subthalamic nucleus high-frequency stimulation for advanced Parkinson’s disease: Motor and neuropsychological outcome after 10 years. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 92(6):381-387, 2014 12. Kinfe TM, Vesper J: The impact of multichannel microelectrode recording (MER) in deep brain stimulation of the basal ganglia. Stereotact. Acta Neurochir Suppl 117:27-33, 2013 13. Kleiner‐Fisman G, Herzog J, Fisman DN, Tamma F, Lyons KE, Pahwa R, Lang AE, Deuschl G: Subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation: Summary and meta‐analysis of outcomes. Mov Disord 21 Suppl 14:S290-304, 2006 14. Kocabica