Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/27036
Title: How accurately are subthalamic nucleus electrodes implanted relative to the ideal stimulation location for Parkinson's disease?
Austin Authors: Pearce, Patrick;Bulluss, Kristian J ;Xu, San San ;Kim, Boaz;Milicevic, Marko;Perera, Thushara;Thevathasan, Wesley
Affiliation: Department of Neurology, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
Medical Bionics Department, The University of Melbourne, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Neurology
Department of Medicine, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
Bionics Institute, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Department of Neurosurgery, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Fitzroy, Victoria, Australia
Neurosurgery
Department of Surgery, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
Issue Date: 15-Jul-2021
Date: 2021-07-15
Publication information: PloS One 2021; 16(7): e0254504
Abstract: The efficacy of subthalamic nucleus (STN) deep brain stimulation (DBS) in Parkinson's disease (PD) depends on how closely electrodes are implanted relative to an individual's ideal stimulation location. Yet, previous studies have assessed how closely electrodes are implanted relative to the planned location, after homogenizing data to a reference. Thus here, we measured how accurately electrodes are implanted relative to an ideal, dorsal STN stimulation location, assessed on each individual's native imaging. This measure captures not only the technical error of stereotactic implantation but also constraints imposed by planning a suitable trajectory. This cross-sectional study assessed 226 electrodes in 113 consecutive PD patients implanted with bilateral STN-DBS by experienced clinicians utilizing awake, microelectrode guided, surgery. The error (Euclidean distance) between the actual electrode trajectory versus a nominated ideal, dorsal STN stimulation location was determined in each hemisphere on native imaging and predictive factors sought. The median electrode location error was 1.62 mm (IQR = 1.23 mm). This error exceeded 3 mm in 28/226 electrodes (12.4%). Location error did not differ between hemispheres implanted first or second, suggesting brain shift was minimised. Location error did not differ between electrodes positioned with (48/226), or without, a preceding microelectrode trajectory shift (suggesting such shifts were beneficial). There was no relationship between location error and case order, arguing against a learning effect. The proximity of STN-DBS electrodes to a nominated ideal, dorsal STN, stimulation location is highly variable, even when implanted by experienced clinicians with brain shift minimized, and without evidence of a learning effect. Using this measure, we found that assessments on awake patients (microelectrode recordings and clinical examination) likely yielded beneficial intraoperative decisions to improve positioning. In many patients the error is likely to have reduced therapeutic efficacy. More accurate methods to implant STN-DBS electrodes relative to the ideal stimulation location are needed.
URI: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/27036
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254504
ORCID: 0000-0002-4237-8373
Journal: PLoS One
PubMed URL: 34264988
Type: Journal Article
Appears in Collections:Journal articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
journal.pone.0254504.pdf923.93 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Show full item record

Page view(s)

56
checked on Nov 29, 2024

Download(s)

60
checked on Nov 29, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.