Deep Brain Stimulation of the Pallidofugal Pathways to Rescue Severe Life-Threatening Dyskinesias after STN-DBS Lead Implantation

Insertional effect following electrode implantation: an underreported but important phenomenon

Deep brain stimulation has revolutionized the treatment of movement disorders and is gaining momentum in the treatment of several other neuropsychiatric disorders. In almost all applications of this therapy, the insertion of electrodes into the target has been shown to induce some degree of clinical improvement prior to stimulation onset. Disregarding this phenomenon, commonly referred to as 'insertional effect', can lead to biased results in clinical trials, as patients receiving sham stimulation may still experience some degree of symptom amelioration. Similar to the clinical scenario, an improvement in behavioural performance following electrode implantation has also been reported in preclinical models. From a neurohistopathologic perspective, the insertion of electrodes into the brain causes an initial trauma and inflammatory response, the activation of astrocytes, a focal release of gliotransmitters, the hyperexcitability of neurons in the vicinity of the implants, as well as neuroplastic and circuitry changes at a distance from the target. Taken together, it would appear that electrode insertion is not an inert process, but rather triggers a cascade of biological processes, and, as such, should be considered alongside the active delivery of stimulation as an active part of the deep brain stimulation therapy.

Sweet spots of standard and directional leads in patients with refractory essential tremor: white matter pathways associated with maximal tremor improvement

OBJECTIVE

In patients with essential tremor (ET) treated with standard deep brain stimulation (sDBS) whose ET had progressed and who no longer received optimal benefit from sDBS, directional deep brain stimulation (dDBS) may provide better tremor control. Current steering may provide better coverage of subcortical structures related to tremor control in patients with ET and significant progression without optimal response to sDBS.

METHODS

This study included 6 patients with ET initially treated with sDBS whose tremor later progressed and who then underwent reimplantation with dDBS to optimize their tremor control. To investigate the differences in the local effects of sDBS and dDBS, the authors generated the volume of tissue activation (VTA) to calculate the sweet spots associated with the best possible tremor control with no side effects. Then, to investigate the anatomical structures associated with maximal tremor control, the white matter pathways of the posterior subthalamic areas (PSAs) were generated and their involvement with the sDBS and dDBS sweet spots was calculated.

RESULTS

Tremor improvement was significantly better with dDBS (68.4%) than with sDBS (48.7%) (p = 0.017). The sDBS sweet spot was located within the ventral intermediate nucleus, whereas the sweet spot of the dDBS was mainly located within the PSA. The sweet spots of both sDBS and dDBS involved a similar portion of the cerebellothalamic pathway. However, the dDBS had greater involvement of the pallidofugal pathways than the sDBS.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with ET treated with sDBS who later had ET progression, dDBS provided better tremor control, which was related to directionality and a more ventral position. The involvement of both the cerebellothalamic and pallidofugal pathways obtained with dDBS is associated with additional improvement over the sDBS.