Clinical Outcome of "Asleep" Deep Brain Stimulation for Parkinson Disease Using Robot-Assisted Delivery and Anatomic Targeting of the Subthalamic Nucleus: A Series of 152 Patients

Efficacy and safety of robot-assisted deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease: a meta-analysis

Objective

This meta-analysis aims to assess the effectiveness and safety of robot-assisted deep brain stimulation (DBS) surgery for Parkinson's disease(PD).

Methods

Four databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science and CENTRAL) were searched from establishment of database to 23 March 2024, for articles studying robot-assisted DBS in patients diagnosed with PD. Meta-analyses of vector error, complication rate, levodopa-equivalent daily dose (LEDD), Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS), UPDRS II, UPDRS III, and UPDRS IV were performed.

Results

A total of 15 studies were included in this meta-analysis, comprising 732 patients with PD who received robot-assisted DBS. The pooled results revealed that the vector error was measured at 1.09 mm (95% CI: 0.87 to 1.30) in patients with Parkinson's disease who received robot-assisted DBS. The complication rate was 0.12 (95% CI, 0.03 to 0.24). The reduction in LEDD was 422.31 mg (95% CI: 68.69 to 775.94). The improvement in UPDRS, UPDRS III, and UPDRS IV was 27.36 (95% CI: 8.57 to 46.15), 14.09 (95% CI: 4.67 to 23.52), and 3.54 (95% CI: -2.35 to 9.43), respectively.

Conclusion

Robot-assisted DBS is a reliable and safe approach for treating PD. Robot-assisted DBS provides enhanced accuracy in contrast to conventional frame-based stereotactic techniques. Nevertheless, further investigation is necessary to validate the advantages of robot-assisted DBS in terms of enhancing motor function and decreasing the need for antiparkinsonian medications, in comparison to traditional frame-based stereotactic techniques.Clinical trial registration: PROSPERO(CRD42024529976).

Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Asleep Single-Stage Deep Brain Stimulation Surgery: Operative Technique and Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Robotic assistance has garnered increased use in neurosurgery. Recently, this has expanded to include deep brain stimulation (DBS). Several studies have reported increased accuracy and improved efficiency with robotic assistance, but these are limited to individual robotic platforms with smaller sample sizes or are broader studies on robotics not specific to DBS. Our objectives are to report our technique for robot-assisted, minimally invasive, asleep, single-stage DBS surgery and to perform a meta-analysis comparing techniques from previous studies.

METHODS

We performed a single-center retrospective review of DBS procedures using a floor-mounted robot with a frameless transient fiducial array registration. We compiled accuracy data (radial entry error, radial target error, and 3-dimensional target error) and efficiency data (operative time, setup time, and total procedure time). We then performed a meta-analysis of previous studies and compared these metrics.

RESULTS

We analyzed 315 electrodes implanted in 160 patients. The mean radial target error was 0.9 ± 0.5 mm, mean target 3-dimensional error was 1.3 ± 0.7 mm, and mean radial entry error was 1.1 ± 0.8 mm. The mean procedure time (including pulse generator placement) was 182.4 ± 47.8 minutes, and the mean setup time was 132.9 ± 32.0 minutes. The overall complication rate was 8.8% (2.5% hemorrhagic/ischemic, 2.5% infectious, and 0.6% revision). Our meta-analysis showed increased accuracy with floor-mounted over skull-mounted robotic platforms and with fiducial-based registrations over optical registrations.

CONCLUSION

Our technique for robot-assisted, minimally invasive, asleep, single-stage DBS surgery is safe, accurate, and efficient. Our data, combined with a meta-analysis of previous studies, demonstrate that robotic assistance can provide similar or increased accuracy and improved efficiency compared with traditional frame-based techniques. Our analysis also suggests that floor-mounted robots and fiducial-based registration methods may be more accurate.

Evaluation of 3D C-Arm Fluoroscopy versus Diagnostic CT for Deep Brain Stimulation Stereotactic Registration and Post-Operative Lead Localization

INTRODUCTION

DBS efficacy depends on accuracy. CT-MRI fusion is established for both stereotactic registration and electrode placement verification. The desire to streamline DBS workflows, reduce operative time, and minimize patient transfers has increased interest in portable imaging modalities such as the Medtronic O-arm® and mobile CT. However, these remain expensive and bulky. 3D C-arm fluoroscopy (3DXT) units are a smaller and less costly alternative, albeit incompatible with traditional frame-based localization and without useful soft tissue resolution. We aimed to compare fusion of 3DXT and CT with pre-operative MRI to evaluate if 3DXT-MRI fusion alone is sufficient for accurate registration and reliable targeting verification. We further assess DBS targeting accuracy using a 3DXT workflow and compare radiation dosimetry between modalities.

METHODS

Patients underwent robot-assisted DBS implantation using a workflow incorporating 3DXT which we describe. Two intra-operative 3DXT spins were performed for registration and accuracy verification followed by conventional CT post-operatively. Post-operative 3DXT and CT images were independently fused to the same pre-operative MRI sequence and co-ordinates generated for comparison. Registration accuracy was compared to 15 consecutive controls who underwent CT-based registration. Radial targeting accuracy was calculated and radiation dosimetry recorded.

RESULTS

Data were obtained from 29 leads in 15 consecutive patients. 3DXT registration accuracy was significantly superior to CT with mean error 0.22 ± 0.03 mm (p < 0.0001). Mean Euclidean electrode tip position variation for CT to MRI versus 3DXT to MRI fusion was 0.62 ± 0.40 mm (range 0.0 mm-1.7 mm). In comparison, direct CT to 3DXT fusion showed electrode tip Euclidean variance of 0.23 ± 0.09 mm. Mean radial targeting accuracy assessed on 3DXT was 0.97 ± 0.54 mm versus 1.15 ± 0.55 mm on CT with differences insignificant (p = 0.30). Mean patient radiation doses were around 80% lower with 3DXT versus CT (p < 0.0001).

DISCUSSION

Mobile 3D C-arm fluoroscopy can be safely incorporated into DBS workflows for both registration and lead verification. For registration, the limited field of view requires the use of frameless transient fiducials and is highly accurate. For lead position verification based on MRI co-registration, we estimate there is around a 0.4 mm discrepancy between lead position seen on 3DXT versus CT when corrected for brain shift. This is similar to that described in O-arm® or mobile CT series. For units where logistical or financial considerations preclude the acquisition of a cone beam CT or mobile CT scanner, our data support portable 3D C-arm fluoroscopy as an acceptable alternative with significantly lower radiation exposure.

Improved Side-Effect Stimulation Thresholds and Postoperative Transient Confusion With Asleep, Image-Guided Deep Brain Stimulation

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Asleep, image-guided deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a modern alternative to awake, microelectrode recording (MER) guidance. Studies demonstrate comparable efficacy and complications between techniques, although some report lower stimulation thresholds for side effects with image guidance. In addition, few studies directly compare the risk of postoperative transient confusion (pTC) across techniques. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical efficacy, stimulation thresholds for side effects, and rates of pTC with MER-guided DBS vs intraoperative 3D-fluoroscopy (i3D-F) guidance in Parkinson's disease and essential tremor.

METHODS

Consecutive patients from 2006 to 2021 were identified from the departmental database and grouped as having either MER-guided DBS or i3D-F-guided DBS insertion. Directional leads were used once commercially available. Changes in Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS)-III scores, levodopa equivalent daily dose, Fahn-Tolosa-Marin scores, and stimulation thresholds were assessed, as were rates of complications including pTC.

RESULTS

MER guidance was used to implant 487 electrodes (18 globus pallidus interna, GPi; 171 subthalamic nucleus; 76 ventrointermediate thalamus, VIM) in 265 patients. i3D-F guidance was used in 167 electrodes (19 GPi; 25 subthalamic nucleus; 41 VIM) in 85 patients. There were no significant differences in Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating III Scale, levodopa equivalent daily dose, or Fahn-Tolosa-Marin between groups. Stimulation thresholds for side effects were higher with i3D-F guidance in the subthalamic nucleus (MER, 2.80 mA ± 0.98; i3D-F, 3.46 mA ± 0.92; P = .002) and VIM (MER, 2.81 mA ± 1.00; i3D-F, 3.19 mA ± 1.03; P = .0018). Less pTC with i3D-F guidance (MER, 7.5%; i3D-F, 1.2%; P = .034) was also found.

CONCLUSION

Although clinical efficacy between MER-guided and i3D-F-guided DBS was comparable, thresholds for stimulation side effects were higher with i3D-F guidance and the rate of pTC was lower. This suggests that image-guided DBS may affect long-term side effects and pose a decreased risk of pTC.

Association of clinical outcomes and connectivity in awake versus asleep deep brain stimulation for Parkinson disease

OBJECTIVE

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) for Parkinson disease (PD) is traditionally performed with awake intraoperative testing and/or microelectrode recording. Recently, however, the procedure has been increasingly performed under general anesthesia with image-based verification. The authors sought to compare structural and functional networks engaged by awake and asleep PD-DBS of the subthalamic nucleus (STN) and correlate them with clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD), pre- and postoperative motor scores on the Movement Disorders Society-Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale part III (MDS-UPDRS III), and total electrical energy delivered (TEED) at 6 months were retroactively assessed in patients with PD who received implants of bilateral DBS leads. In subset analysis, implanted electrodes were reconstructed using the Lead-DBS toolbox. Volumes of tissue activated (VTAs) were used as seed points in group volumetric and connectivity analysis.

RESULTS

The clinical courses of 122 patients (52 asleep, 70 awake) were reviewed. Operating room and procedure times were significantly shorter in asleep cases. LEDD reduction, MDS-UPDRS III score improvement, and TEED at the 6-month follow-up did not differ between groups. In subset analysis (n = 40), proximity of active contact, VTA overlap, and desired network fiber counts with motor STN correlated with lower DBS energy requirement and improved motor scores. Discriminative structural fiber tracts involving supplementary motor area, thalamus, and brainstem were associated with optimal clinical improvement. Areas of highest structural and functional connectivity with VTAs did not significantly differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to awake STN DBS, asleep procedures can achieve similarly optimal targeting-based on clinical outcomes, electrode placement, and connectivity estimates-in more efficient procedures and shorter operating room times.

The Role of Microelectrode Recording in Deep Brain Stimulation Surgery for Parkinson's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

STN-DBS is a cornerstone in the treatment of advanced Parkinson's disease (PD). The traditional approach is to use an awake operative technique with microelectrode recording (MER). However, more centers start using an asleep MRI-guided technique without MER.

OBJECTIVE

We systematically reviewed the literature to compare STN-DBS surgery with and without MER for differences in clinical outcome.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases for randomized clinical trials and consecutive cohort studies published between 01-01-2000 and 26-08-2021, that included at least 10 PD patients who had received bilateral STN-DBS.

RESULTS

2,129 articles were identified. After abstract screening and full-text review, 26 studies were included in the final analysis, comprising a total of 34 study groups (29 MER and 5 non-MER). The standardized mean difference (SMD) in change in motor symptoms between baseline (OFF medication) and 6-24 months follow-up (OFF medication and ON stimulation) was 1.64 for the MER group and 1.87 for non-MER group (p = 0.59). SMD in change in levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) was 1.14 for the MER group and 0.65 for non-MER group (p < 0.01). Insufficient data were available for comparative analysis of PDQ-39 and complications.

CONCLUSION

The change in motor symptoms from baseline to follow-up did not differ between studies that used MER and those that did not. The postoperative reduction in LEDD from baseline to follow-up was greater in the MER-group. In the absence of high-quality studies comparing both methods, there is a clear need for a well-designed comparative trial.

Experimental deep brain stimulation in rodent models of movement disorders

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is the preferred treatment for therapy-resistant movement disorders such as dystonia and Parkinson's disease (PD), mostly in advanced disease stages. Although DBS is already in clinical use for ~30 years and has improved patients' quality of life dramatically, there is still limited understanding of the underlying mechanisms of action. Rodent models of PD and dystonia are essential tools to elucidate the mode of action of DBS on behavioral and multiscale neurobiological levels. Advances have been made in identifying DBS effects on the central motor network, neuroprotection and neuroinflammation in DBS studies of PD rodent models. The phenotypic dt^sz mutant hamster and the transgenic DYT-TOR1A (ΔETorA) rat proved as valuable models of dystonia for preclinical DBS research. In addition, continuous refinements of rodent DBS technologies are ongoing and have contributed to improvement of experimental quality. We here review the currently existing literature on experimental DBS in PD and dystonia models regarding the choice of models, experimental design, neurobiological readouts, as well as methodological implications. Moreover, we provide an overview of the technical stage of existing DBS devices for use in rodent studies.

New Frontiers for Deep Brain Stimulation: Directionality, Sensing Technologies, Remote Programming, Robotic Stereotactic Assistance, Asleep Procedures, and Connectomics

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.