Clinical outcomes of globus pallidus deep brain stimulation for Parkinson disease: a comparison of intraoperative MRI- and MER-guided lead placement.

OBJECTIVE: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) lead placement is increasingly performed with the patient under general anesthesia by surgeons using intraoperative MRI (iMRI) guidance without microelectrode recording (MER) or macrostimulation. The authors assessed the accuracy of lead placement, safety, and motor outcomes in patients with Parkinson disease (PD) undergoing DBS lead placement into the globus pallidus internus (GPi) using iMRI or MER guidance. METHODS: The authors identified all patients with PD who underwent either MER- or iMRI-guided GPi-DBS lead placement at Emory University between July 2007 and August 2016. Lead placement accuracy and adverse events were determined for all patients. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) part III motor scores for patients completing 12 months of follow-up. The authors also assessed the levodopa-equivalent daily dose (LEDD) and stimulation parameters. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients were identified (MER, n = 28; iMRI, n = 49), in whom 131 leads were placed. The stereotactic accuracy of the surgical procedure with respect to the planned lead location was 1.94 ± 0.21 mm (mean ± SEM) (95% CI 1.54-2.34) with frame-based MER and 0.84 ± 0.007 mm (95% CI 0.69-0.98) with iMRI. The rate of serious complications was similar, at 6.9% for MER-guided DBS lead placement and 9.4% for iMRI-guided DBS lead placement (RR 0.71 [95% CI 0.13%-3.9%]; p = 0.695). Fifty-seven patients were included in clinical outcome analyses (MER, n = 16; iMRI, n = 41). Both groups had similar characteristics at baseline, although patients undergoing MER-guided DBS had a lower response on their baseline levodopa challenge (44.8% ± 5.4% [95% CI 33.2%-56.4%] vs 61.6% ± 2.1% [95% CI 57.4%-65.8%]; t = 3.558, p = 0.001). Greater improvement was seen following iMRI-guided lead placement (43.2% ± 3.5% [95% CI 36.2%-50.3%]) versus MER-guided lead placement (25.5% ± 6.7% [95% CI 11.1%-39.8%]; F = 5.835, p = 0.019). When UPDRS III motor scores were assessed only in the contralateral hemibody (per-lead analyses), the improvements remained significantly different (37.1% ± 7.2% [95% CI 22.2%-51.9%] and 50.0% ± 3.5% [95% CI 43.1%-56.9%] for MER- and iMRI-guided DBS lead placement, respectively). Both groups exhibited similar reductions in LEDDs (21.2% and 20.9%, respectively; F = 0.221, p = 0.640). The locations of all active contacts and the 2D radial distance from these to consensus coordinates for GPi-DBS lead placement (x, ±20; y, +2; and z, -4) did not differ statistically by type of surgery. CONCLUSIONS: iMRI-guided GPi-DBS lead placement in PD patients was associated with significant improvement in clinical outcomes, comparable to those observed following MER-guided DBS lead placement. Furthermore, iMRI-guided DBS implantation produced a similar safety profile to that of the MER-guided procedure. As such, iMRI guidance is an alternative to MER guidance for patients undergoing GPi-DBS implantation for PD.

Use of a Subtemporal Approach for a Salvage Placement of a Trigeminal Ganglion Stimulating Electrode for the Treatment of Trigeminal Neuropathic Pain.

BACKGROUND: Trigeminal ganglion stimulation can be effective for trigeminal neuralgia. For patients who respond well to neurostimulation delivered percutaneously through the foramen ovale but require extensive revision and removal of instrumentation, a subtemporal approach for stimulation of the trigeminal ganglion is an alternative option as a salvage procedure. CASE DESCRIPTION: We report on a 47-year-old woman who responded well to neurostimulation for trigeminal neuropathic pain over a 1-year period from 2008 to 2009. Her preoperative pain on the numerical rating scale (NRS) was between 7 and 8 out of 10, which decreased to 2 out of 10 postoperatively. However, she developed lead migration because of a motor vehicle accident. After revision surgeries to correct this, she continued to experience pain relief until 2011. At follow-up, signs of infection prompted removal of instrumentation and subsequent return of her pain. She continued to experience persistent and severe pain (NRS score 7 of 10), which was intractable to pharmacologic treatment over 5 years. She returned in 2016 to discuss neurosurgical options, and the original approach was ruled out because of her history of lead migration, erosion, and scarring. A subtemporal approach was pursued as a salvage option, which provided several advantages for this patient. CONCLUSIONS: The subtemporal approach for salvage placement of the trigeminal ganglion stimulating electrode was effective in this patient and minimized risks given her history of erosion and multiple operations. This suggests that the subtemporal approach is a viable salvage operation for trigeminal ganglion stimulation for trigeminal neuropathic pain.

Occipital Nerve Stimulation for the Treatment of Refractory Occipital Neuralgia: A Case Series.

BACKGROUND: Occipital neuralgia is a chronic pain syndrome characterized by sharp, shooting pains in the distribution of the occipital nerves. Although relatively rare, it associated with extremely debilitating symptoms that drastically affect a patient's quality of life. Furthermore, it is extremely difficult to treat as the symptoms are refractory to traditional treatments, including pharmacologic and procedural interventions. A few previous case studies have established the use of a neurostimulation of the occipital nerves to treat occipital neuralgia. OBJECTIVE: The following expands on that literature by retrospectively reviewing the results of occipital nerve stimulation in a relatively large patient cohort (29 patients). METHODS: A retrospective review of 29 patients undergoing occipital nerve stimulation for occipital neuralgia from 2012 to 2017 at a single institution with a single neurosurgeon. RESULTS: Of those 29 patients, 5 were repair or replacement of previous systems, 4 did not have benefit from trial stimulation, and 20 saw benefit to their trial stage of stimulation and went on to full implantation. Of those 20 patients, even with a history of failed procedures and pharmacological therapies, there was an overall success rate of 85%. The average preoperative 10-point pain score dropped from 7.4 ± 1.7 to a postoperative score of 2.9 ± 1.7. However, as with any peripheral nerve stimulation procedure, there were complications (4 patients), including infection, hardware erosion, loss of effect, and lead migration, which required revision or system removal. CONCLUSION: Despite complications, the results suggest, overall, that occipital nerve stimulation is a safe and effective procedure for refractory occipital neuralgia and should be in the neurosurgical repertoire for occipital neuralgia treatment.