Parkinsonism & related disorders · 2023
Deep brain stimulation for hemidystonia: A meta-analysis with individual patient data.
Систематический обзорМетаанализСтатьяНазвание 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.
Abdulbaki Arif, Jijakli Amr, Krauss Joachim K
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is now well established for the treatment of dystonic movement disorders. There is limited data, however, on the efficacy of DBS in hemidystonia. This meta-analysis aims to summarize the published reports on DBS for hemidystonia of different etiologies, to compare different stimulation targets, and to evaluate clinical outcome.
METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed on PubMed, Embase and Web of Science to identify appropriate reports. The primary outcome variables were the improvement in the Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale movement (BFMDRS-M) and disability (BFMDRS-D) scores for dystonia.
RESULTS: Twenty-two reports (39 patients; 22 with pallidal stimulation, 4 with subthalamic stimulation, 3 with thalamic stimulation, and 10 with combined target stimulation) were included. Mean age at surgery was 26.8 years. Mean follow-up time was 31.72 months. An overall mean improvement of 40% in the BFMDRS-M score was achieved (range 0%-94%), which was paralleled by a mean improvement of 41% in the BFMDRS-D score. When considering a 20% cut-off for improvement, 23/39 patients (59%) would qualify as responders. Hemidystonia due to anoxia did not significantly improve with DBS. Several limitations of the results must be considered, most importantly the low level of evidence and the small number of reported cases.
CONCLUSION: Based on the results of the current analysis, DBS can be considered as a treatment option for hemidystonia. The posteroventral lateral GPi is the target used most often. More research is needed to understand the variability in outcome and to identify prognostic factors.
METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed on PubMed, Embase and Web of Science to identify appropriate reports. The primary outcome variables were the improvement in the Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale movement (BFMDRS-M) and disability (BFMDRS-D) scores for dystonia.
RESULTS: Twenty-two reports (39 patients; 22 with pallidal stimulation, 4 with subthalamic stimulation, 3 with thalamic stimulation, and 10 with combined target stimulation) were included. Mean age at surgery was 26.8 years. Mean follow-up time was 31.72 months. An overall mean improvement of 40% in the BFMDRS-M score was achieved (range 0%-94%), which was paralleled by a mean improvement of 41% in the BFMDRS-D score. When considering a 20% cut-off for improvement, 23/39 patients (59%) would qualify as responders. Hemidystonia due to anoxia did not significantly improve with DBS. Several limitations of the results must be considered, most importantly the low level of evidence and the small number of reported cases.
CONCLUSION: Based on the results of the current analysis, DBS can be considered as a treatment option for hemidystonia. The posteroventral lateral GPi is the target used most often. More research is needed to understand the variability in outcome and to identify prognostic factors.