Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
IntroductionAdaptive deep brain stimulation (aDBS) has been applied in Parkinson's disease (PD), based on the presence of brief high-amplitude beta (13-35 Hz) oscillation bursts in the subthalamic nucleus (STN), which correlate with symptom severity. Analogously, average low-frequency (LF) oscillatory power (4-12 Hz) in the internal globus pallidus (GPi) correlates with dystonic symptoms and might be a suitable physiomarker for aDBS in dystonia. Characterization of pallidal bursts could facilitate the implementation of aDBS in the GPi of PD and dystonia patients.Objective and methodsWe aimed to describe the bursting behaviour of LF and beta oscillations in a cohort of five GPi-DBS PD patients and compare their amplitude and length with those of a cohort of seven GPi-DBS dystonia, and six STN-DBS PD patients (n electrodes = 34). Furthermore, we used the information obtained to set up aDBS and test it in the GPi of both a dystonia and a PD patient (n = 2), using either LF (dystonia) or beta oscillations (PD) as feedback signals.ResultsLF and beta oscillations in the dystonic and parkinsonian GPi occur as phasic, short-lived bursts, similarly to the parkinsonian STN. The amplitude profile of such bursts, however, differed significantly. Dystonia showed higher LF burst amplitudes, while PD presented higher beta burst amplitudes. Burst characteristics in the parkinsonian GPi and STN were similar. Furthermore, aDBS applied in the GPi was feasible and well tolerated in both diseases.ConclusionPallidal LF and beta burst amplitudes have different characteristics in PD and dystonia. The presence of increased burst amplitudes could be employed as feedback for GPi-aDBS.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.