Evolution and Rebirth of Functional Stereotaxy in the Subthalamus

Revisiting Forel Field Surgery

BACKGROUND

Lesioning the Forel field or the subthalamic region is considered a possible treatment for tremoric patients with Parkinson disease, essential tremor, and other diseases. This surgical treatment was performed in the 1960s to 1970s and was an alternative to thalamotomy. Recently, there has been increasing interest in the reappraisal of stimulating and/or lesioning these targets, partly as a result of innovations in imaging and noninvasive ablative technologies, such as magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasonography.

OBJECTIVE

We wanted to perform a thorough review of the subthalamic region, both from an anatomic and a surgical standpoint, to offer a comprehensive and updated analysis of the techniques and results reported for patients with tremor treated with different techniques.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of the literature, gathering articles that included patients who underwent ablative or stimulation surgical techniques, targeting the pallidothalamic pathways (pallidothalamic tractotomy), cerebellothalamic pathway (cerebellothalamic tractotomy), or subthalamic area.

RESULTS

Pallidothalamic tractotomy consists of a reduced area that includes pallidofugal pathways. It may be considered an interesting target, given the benefit/risk ratio and the clinical effect, which, compared with pallidotomy, involves a lower risk of injury or involvement of vital structures such as the internal capsule or optic tract. Cerebellothalamic tractotomy and/or posterior subthalamic area are other alternative targets to thalamic stimulation or ablative surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the significant breakthrough that magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasonography has meant in the neurosurgical world, some classic targets such as the pallidothalamic tract, Forel field, and posterior subthalamic area may be reconsidered as surgical alternatives for patients with movement disorders.

And Then There Was Light: Perspectives of Optogenetics for Deep Brain Stimulation and Neuromodulation

Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) has evolved into a well-accepted add-on treatment for patients with severe Parkinsons disease as well as for other chronic neurological conditions. The focal action of electrical stimulation can yield better responses and it exposes the patient to fewer side effects compared to pharmaceuticals distributed throughout the body toward the brain. On the other hand, the current practice of DBS is hampered by the relatively coarse level of neuromodulation achieved. Optogenetics, in contrast, offers the perspective of much more selective actions on the various physiological structures, provided that the stimulated cells are rendered sensitive to the action of light. Optogenetics has experienced tremendous progress since its first in vivo applications about 10 years ago. Recent advancements of viral vector technology for gene transfer substantially reduce vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses. This brings about the possibility to transfer this technology into the clinic as a possible alternative to DBS and neuromodulation. New paths could be opened toward a rich panel of clinical applications. Some technical issues still limit the long term use in humans but realistic perspectives quickly emerge. Despite a rapid accumulation of observations about patho-physiological mechanisms, it is still mostly serendipity and empiric adjustments that dictate clinical practice while more efficient logically designed interventions remain rather exceptional. Interestingly, it is also very much the neuro technology developed around optogenetics that offers the most promising tools to fill in the existing knowledge gaps about brain function in health and disease. The present review examines Parkinson's disease and refractory epilepsy as use cases for possible optogenetic stimulation therapies.

Parkinson’s disease outcomes after intraoperative CT-guided “asleep” deep brain stimulation in the globus pallidus internus

OBJECT

Recent studies show that deep brain stimulation can be performed safely and accurately without microelectrode recording ortest stimulation but with the patient under general anesthesia. The procedure couples techniques for direct anatomical targeting on MRI with intraoperative imaging to verify stereotactic accuracy. However, few authors have examined the clinical outcomes of Parkinson’s disease (PD) patients after this procedure. The purpose of this study was to evaluate PD outcomes following “asleep” deep brain stimulation in the globus pallidus internus (GPi).

METHODS

The authors prospectively examined all consecutive patients with advanced PD who underwent bilateral GPi electrode placement while under general anesthesia. Intraoperative CT was used to assess lead placement accuracy. The primary outcome measure was the change in the off-medication Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale motor score 6 months after surgery. Secondary outcomes included effects on the 39-Item Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39) scores, on-medication motor scores, and levodopa equivalent daily dose. Lead locations, active contact sites, stimulation parameters, and adverse events were documented.

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients (24 males, 11 females) had a mean age of 61 years at lead implantation. The mean radial error off plan was 0.8 mm. Mean coordinates for the active contact were 21.4 mm lateral, 4.7 mm anterior, and 0.4 mm superior to the midcommissural point. The mean off-medication motor score improved from 48.4 at baseline to 28.9 (40.3% improvement) at 6 months (p < 0.001). The PDQ-39 scores improved (50.3 vs 42.0; p = 0.03), and the levodopa equivalent daily dose was reduced (1207 vs 1035 mg; p = 0.004). There were no significant adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Globus pallidus internus leads placed with the patient under general anesthesia by using direct anatomical targeting resulted in significantly improved outcomes as measured by the improvement in the off-medication motor score at 6 months after surgery.

Coordinate-based lead location does not predict Parkinson's disease deep brain stimulation outcome

Background

Effective target regions for deep brain stimulation (DBS) in Parkinson's disease (PD) have been well characterized. We sought to study whether the measured Cartesian coordinates of an implanted DBS lead are predictive of motor outcome(s). We tested the hypothesis that the position and trajectory of the DBS lead relative to the mid-commissural point (MCP) are significant predictors of clinical outcomes. We expected that due to neuroanatomical variation among individuals, a simple measure of the position of the DBS lead relative to MCP (commonly used in clinical practice) may not be a reliable predictor of clinical outcomes when utilized alone.

Methods

55 PD subjects implanted with subthalamic nucleus (STN) DBS and 41 subjects implanted with globus pallidus internus (GPi) DBS were included. Lead locations in AC-PC space (x, y, z coordinates of the active contact and sagittal and coronal entry angles) measured on high-resolution CT-MRI fused images, and motor outcomes (Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale) were analyzed to confirm or refute a correlation between coordinate-based lead locations and DBS motor outcomes.

Results

Coordinate-based lead locations were not a significant predictor of change in UPDRS III motor scores when comparing pre- versus post-operative values. The only potentially significant individual predictor of change in UPDRS motor scores was the antero-posterior coordinate of the GPi lead (more anterior lead locations resulted in a worse outcome), but this was only a statistical trend (p<.082).

Conclusion

The results of the study showed that a simple measure of the position of the DBS lead relative to the MCP is not significantly correlated with PD motor outcomes, presumably because this method fails to account for individual neuroanatomical variability. However, there is broad agreement that motor outcomes depend strongly on lead location. The results suggest the need for more detailed identification of stimulation location relative to anatomical targets.