Model-Based Deep Brain Stimulation Programming for Parkinson's Disease: The GUIDE Pilot Study
Background: Achieving optimal results following deep brain stimulation (DBS) typically involves several months of programming sessions. The Graphical User Interface for DBS Evaluation (GUIDE) study explored whether a visual programming system could help clinicians accurately predetermine ideal stimu...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Stereotactic and functional neurosurgery 2015-01, Vol.93 (4), p.231-239 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Background: Achieving optimal results following deep brain stimulation (DBS) typically involves several months of programming sessions. The Graphical User Interface for DBS Evaluation (GUIDE) study explored whether a visual programming system could help clinicians accurately predetermine ideal stimulation settings in DBS patients with Parkinson's disease. Methods: A multicenter prospective, observational study was designed that utilized a blinded Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS)-III examination to prospectively assess whether DBS settings derived using a neuroanatomically based computer model (Model) could provide comparable efficacy to those determined through traditional, monopolar review-based programming (Clinical). We retrospectively compared the neuroanatomical regions of stimulation, power consumption and time spent on programming using both methods. Results: The average improvement in UPDRS-III scores was 10.4 ± 7.8 for the Model settings and 11.7 ± 8.7 for the Clinical settings. The difference between the mean UPDRS-III scores with the Model versus the Clinical settings was 0.26 and not statistically significant (p = 0.9866). Power consumption for the Model settings was 48.7 ± 22 μW versus 76.1 ± 46.5 μW for the Clinical settings. The mean time spent programming using the Model approach was 31 ± 16 s versus 41.4 ± 29.1 min using the Clinical approach. Conclusion: The Model-based DBS settings provided similar benefit to the Clinical settings based on UPDRS-III scores and were often arrived at in less time and required less power than the Clinical settings. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1011-6125 1423-0372 |
DOI: | 10.1159/000375172 |