Brain stimulation · 2023
Machine versus physician-based programming of deep brain stimulation in isolated dystonia: A feasibility study.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lange Florian, Soares Carolina, Roothans Jonas, Raimundo Rita, Eldebakey Hazem, Weigl Benedikt, Peach Robert, Daniels Christine, Musacchio Thomas, Volkmann Jens, Rosas Maria José, Reich Martin M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Deep brain stimulation of the internal globus pallidus effectively alleviates dystonia motor symptoms. However, delayed symptom control and a lack of therapeutic biomarkers and a single pallidal sweetspot region complicates optimal programming. Postoperative management is complex, typically requiring multiple, lengthy follow-ups with an experienced physician - an important barrier to widespread adoption in medication-refractory dystonia patients.
OBJECTIVE: Here we prospectively tested the best machine-predicted programming settings in a dystonia cohort treated with GPi-DBS against the settings derived from clinical long-term care in a specialised DBS centre.
METHODS: Previously, we reconstructed an anatomical map of motor improvement probability across the pallidal region using individual stimulation volumes and clinical outcomes in dystonia patients. We used this to develop an algorithm that tests in silico thousands of putative stimulation settings in de novo patients after reconstructing an individual, image-based anatomical model of electrode positions, and suggests stimulation parameters with the highest likelihood of optimal symptom control. To test real-life application, our prospective study compared results in 10 patients against programming settings derived from long-term care.
RESULTS: In this cohort, dystonia symptom reduction was observed at 74.9 ± 15.3% with C-SURF programming as compared to 66.3 ± 16.3% with clinical programming (p < 0.012). The average total electrical energy delivered (TEED) was similar for both the clinical and C-SURF programming (262.0 μJ/s vs. 306.1 μJ/s respectively).
CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight the clinical potential of machine-based programming in dystonia, which could markedly reduce the programming burden in postoperative management.
OBJECTIVE: Here we prospectively tested the best machine-predicted programming settings in a dystonia cohort treated with GPi-DBS against the settings derived from clinical long-term care in a specialised DBS centre.
METHODS: Previously, we reconstructed an anatomical map of motor improvement probability across the pallidal region using individual stimulation volumes and clinical outcomes in dystonia patients. We used this to develop an algorithm that tests in silico thousands of putative stimulation settings in de novo patients after reconstructing an individual, image-based anatomical model of electrode positions, and suggests stimulation parameters with the highest likelihood of optimal symptom control. To test real-life application, our prospective study compared results in 10 patients against programming settings derived from long-term care.
RESULTS: In this cohort, dystonia symptom reduction was observed at 74.9 ± 15.3% with C-SURF programming as compared to 66.3 ± 16.3% with clinical programming (p < 0.012). The average total electrical energy delivered (TEED) was similar for both the clinical and C-SURF programming (262.0 μJ/s vs. 306.1 μJ/s respectively).
CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight the clinical potential of machine-based programming in dystonia, which could markedly reduce the programming burden in postoperative management.