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.

Mixed effectiveness of rTMS and retraining in the treatment of focal hand dystonia.

UNLABELLED: Though the pathophysiology of dystonia remains uncertain, two primary factors implicated in the development of dystonic symptoms are excessive cortical excitability and impaired sensorimotor processing. The aim of this study was to determine the functional efficacy of an intervention combining repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and sensorimotor retraining. A randomized, single-subject, multiple baseline design with crossover was used to examine participants with focal hand dystonia (FHD) (n = 9). INTERVENTION: 5 days rTMS + sensorimotor retraining (SMR) vs. Five days rTMS + control therapy (CTL) (which included stretching and massage). The rTMS was applied to the premotor cortex at 1 Hz at 80% resting motor threshold for 1200 pulses. For sensorimotor retraining, a subset of the Learning-based Sensorimotor Training program was followed. Each session in both groups consisted of rTMS followed immediately by 30 min of the therapy intervention (SMR or CTL). Contrary to our hypothesis, group analyses revealed no additional benefit from the SMR training vs. CTL. When analyzed across group however, there was significant improvement from the first baseline assessment in several measures, including tests of sensory ability and self-rated changes. The patient rated improvements were accompanied by a moderate effect size suggesting clinical meaningfulness. These results provide encouragement for further investigation of rTMS in FHD with a need to optimize a secondary intervention and determine likely responders vs. non-responders.

Hebbian-type stimulation during robot-assisted training in patients with stroke.

BACKGROUND: Training-related improvements in motor function are associated with changes in movement representation of the primary motor cortex (M1). In healthy individuals, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of M1 delivered in a strict temporal relationship (Hebbian-type stimulation) during execution of movements enhances these effects and is superior to random stimulation. OBJECTIVE: The authors tested whether training combined with Hebbian-type M1 stimulation enhances M1 reorganization in patients with stroke. METHODS: Six patients with chronic stroke participated in the study. Patients executed robot-assisted wrist extension movements at 0.2 Hz frequency while subthreshold repetitive TMS was applied over M1 in a strict temporal relationship to the training movements. TMS was applied to either the affected hemisphere (contralateral M1) or the nonaffected hemisphere (ipsilateral M1) at 0.1 Hz. Intervention-related changes in motor maps and intracortical excitability were measured using TMS. RESULTS: Training alone or combined Hebbian-type stimulation of either M1 resulted in differential effects on motor maps and intracortical inhibition. Shifts in motor maps were associated with increases in intracortical excitability. In contrast to previous results for healthy participants, the inhibitory effect of ipsilateral M1 Hebbian-type stimulation was not present, and the facilitatory effect of contralateral M1 stimulation was more subtle. CONCLUSIONS: Hebbian-type stimulation is feasible in patients poststroke and induces map reorganization and associated decreases in GABAergic inhibition. However, because TMS protocols have a different effect on motor reorganization in the injured brain and may depend on location of the lesion, protocols need to be tailored to the patient's pathology.

Controversy: Noninvasive and invasive cortical stimulation show efficacy in treating stroke patients.

Stroke is the leading cause of disability in the adult population of western industrialized countries. Despite significant improvements of acute stroke care, two thirds of stroke survivors have to cope with persisting neurologic deficits. Adjuvant brain stimulation is a novel approach to improving the treatment of residual deficits after stroke. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), and epidural electrical stimulation have been used in first trials on small cohorts of stroke patients. Effect sizes in the order of 8% to 30% of functional improvement have been reported, but a publication bias toward presenting "promising" but not negative results is likely. Many questions regarding underlying mechanisms, optimal stimulation parameters, combination with other types of interventions, among others, are open. This review addresses six controversies related to the experimental application of brain stimulation techniques to stroke patients. Cortical stimulation after stroke will need to be individually tailored and a thorough patient stratification according to type and extent of clinical deficit, lesion location, lesion size, comorbidities, time in the recovery process, and perhaps also age and gender will be necessary. There is consensus that cortical stimulation in stroke patients is still experimental and should only be applied in the frame of scientific studies.