Suppr超能文献

腹侧中间核与未定带区域深部脑刺激治疗特发性震颤

Ventral Intermediate Nucleus Versus Zona Incerta Region Deep Brain Stimulation in Essential Tremor.

作者信息

Eisinger Robert S, Wong Joshua, Almeida Leonardo, Ramirez-Zamora Adolfo, Cagle Jackson N, Giugni Juan C, Ahmed Bilal, Bona Alberto R, Monari Erin, Wagle Shukla Aparna, Hess Christopher W, Hilliard Justin D, Foote Kelly D, Gunduz Aysegul, Okun Michael S, Martinez-Ramirez Daniel

机构信息

Department of Neuroscience Center for Movement Disorders and Neurorestoration University of Florida College of Medicine Gainesville FL USA.

Department of Neurology Center for Movement Disorders and Neurorestoration University of Florida College of Medicine Gainesville FL USA.

出版信息

Mov Disord Clin Pract. 2017 Nov 27;5(1):75-82. doi: 10.1002/mdc3.12565. eCollection 2018 Jan-Feb.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The ventral intermediate nucleus (VIM) is the target of choice for Essential Tremor (ET) deep brain stimulation (DBS). Renewed interest in caudal zona incerta (cZI) stimulation for tremor control has recently emerged and some groups believe this approach may address long-term reduction of benefit seen with VIM-DBS.

OBJECTIVES

To compare clinical outcomes and DBS programming in the long-term between VIM and cZI neurostimulation in ET-DBS patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of 53 DBS leads from 47 patients was performed. Patients were classified into VIM or cZI groups according to the location of the activated DBS contact. Demographics, DBS settings, and Tremor Rating Scale scores were compared between groups at baseline and yearly follow-up to 4 years after DBS. Student t-tests and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to compare variables between groups.

RESULTS

Relative to baseline, an improvement in ON-DBS tremor scores was observed in both groups from 6 months to 4 years post-DBS ( < 0.05). Although improvement was still significant at 4 years, scores from month 6 to 2 years were comparable between groups but at 3 and 4 years post-DBS the outcome was better in the VIM group ( < 0.01). Stimulation settings were similar across groups, although we found a lower voltage in the VIM group at 3 years post-DBS.

CONCLUSIONS

More ventral DBS contacts in the cZI region do improve tremor, however, VIM-DBS provided better long-term outcomes. Randomized controlled trials comparing cZI vs VIM targets should confirm these results.

摘要

背景

腹中间核(VIM)是原发性震颤(ET)深部脑刺激(DBS)的首选靶点。最近,人们对刺激尾侧未定带(cZI)以控制震颤重新产生了兴趣,一些研究团队认为这种方法可能解决VIM-DBS长期疗效降低的问题。

目的

比较ET-DBS患者中VIM和cZI神经刺激的长期临床疗效和DBS程控情况。

材料与方法

对47例患者的53个DBS电极进行回顾性分析。根据激活的DBS触点位置将患者分为VIM组或cZI组。在基线期以及DBS术后至4年的每年随访中,比较两组的人口统计学数据、DBS设置和震颤评分量表得分。采用学生t检验和方差分析(ANOVA)比较组间变量。

结果

与基线相比,两组在DBS术后6个月至4年期间开启DBS时的震颤评分均有改善(<0.05)。虽然4年时改善仍显著,但两组在术后6个月至2年的评分相当,而在DBS术后3年和4年,VIM组的结果更好(<0.01)。各组刺激设置相似,不过我们发现DBS术后3年时VIM组的电压较低。

结论

cZI区域更靠腹侧的DBS触点确实能改善震颤,然而,VIM-DBS能提供更好的长期疗效。比较cZI与VIM靶点的随机对照试验应能证实这些结果。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验