No abstract

Over the last few years, while expanding its clinical indications from movement disorders to epilepsy and psychiatry, the field of deep brain stimulation (DBS) has seen significant innovations. Hardware developments have introduced directional leads to stimulate specific brain targets and sensing electrodes to determine optimal settings via feedback from local field potentials. In addition, variable-frequency stimulation and asynchronous high-frequency pulse trains have introduced new programming paradigms to efficiently desynchronize pathological neural circuitry and regulate dysfunctional brain networks not responsive to conventional settings. Overall, these innovations have provided clinicians with more anatomically accurate programming and closed-looped feedback to identify optimal strategies for neuromodulation. Simultaneously, software developments have simplified programming algorithms, introduced platforms for DBS remote management via telemedicine, and tools for estimating the volume of tissue activated within and outside the DBS targets. Finally, the surgical accuracy has improved thanks to intraoperative magnetic resonance or computerized tomography guidance, network-based imaging for DBS planning and targeting, and robotic-assisted surgery for ultra-accurate, millimetric lead placement. These technological and imaging advances have collectively optimized DBS outcomes and allowed “asleep” DBS procedures. Still, the short- and long-term outcomes of different implantable devices, surgical techniques, and asleep vs. awake procedures remain to be clarified. This expert review summarizes and critically discusses these recent innovations and their potential impact on the DBS field.

Several single-center studies and one large multicenter clinical trial demonstrated that directional deep brain stimulation (DBS) could optimize the volume of tissue activated (VTA) based on the individual placement of the lead in relation to the target. The ability to generate axially asymmetric fields of stimulation translates into a broader therapeutic window (TW) compared to conventional DBS. However, Aristide Merola and Alberto Romagnolo contributed equally to the manuscript and shared co-first authorship. Enhanced digital features To view enhanced digital features for this article go to https://doi.org/10.6084/ m9.figshare.11864961.

A BS TRACT: Background: High-frequency (130-185 Hz) deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the subthalamic nucleus is more effective for appendicular than axial symptoms in Parkinson's disease (PD). Low-frequency (60-80 Hz) stimulation (LFS) may reduce gait/balance impairment but typically results in worsening appendicular symptoms. We created a "dual-frequency" programming paradigm (interleave-interlink, IL-IL) to address both axial and appendicular symptoms. In IL-IL, 2 overlapping LFS programs are applied to the DBS lead, with the overlapping area focused on the optimal cathode. The nonoverlapping area (LFS) is thought to reduce gait/balance impairment, whereas the overlapping area (highfrequency stimulation, HFS) aims to control appendicular symptoms. Methods: We performed a randomized, double-blind crossover trial comparing patients' previously optimized IL-IL and conventional HFS paradigms. Each arm was 2 weeks in duration. The primary outcome measure was the patient/caregiver Modified Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S). Secondary outcome measures included blinded motor evaluations, timed tests, patient/caregiver questionnaires, and Personal KinetiGraphs (PKG). Results: Twenty-five patients were enrolled, and 20 completed. The patient/caregiver CGI-S for gait/balance (P = 0.01) and appendicular symptom control (P = 0.001), and the blinded rater MDS-UPDRS-III (−5.22, P = 0.02), CGI-S gait/balance (P = 0.01), and CGI-S speech (P = 0.02) were better while on IL-IL. Scores on Parkinson's Disease Quality of Life (P = 0.002) and Freezing-of-Gait Questionnaires (P = 0.04) were better on IL-IL. The Timed-Up-and-Go was 9.8% faster (P = 0.01), with 11.8% reduction in steps (P = 0.001) on IL-IL. There was no difference in PKG bradykinesia (P = 0.18) or tremor (P = 0.23) between paradigms. Conclusions: Our results prompt consideration of this novel programming paradigm (IL-IL) for PD patients with axial symptom impairment as a new treatment option for both axial and appendicular symptoms.

No abstract