SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Deep brain stimulation of globus pallidus internus and subthalamic nucleus in Parkinson's disease: a multicenter, retrospective study of efficacy and safety.

Neurol Sci · 2023-08-09

DOI: 10.1007/s10072-023-06999-zPMID: 37555874

Open accessresearch-article; Multicenter Study; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundDeep brain stimulation (DBS) is an established therapeutic option in advanced Parkinson's disease (PD). Literature data and recent guidelines remain inconclusive about the best choice as a target between the subthalamic nucleus (STN) and the globus pallidus internus (GPi).Materials and methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the clinical efficacy outcomes of 48 DBS-implanted patients (33 STN-DBS and 15 GPi-DBS) at a short- (ResultsWe found no difference between STN-DBS and GPi-DBS in improving motor symptoms at short-term evaluation. However, STN-DBS achieved a more prominent reduction in oral therapy (L-DOPA equivalent daily dose, P = .02). By contrast, GPi-DBS was superior in ameliorating motor fluctuations and dyskinesia (MDS-UPDRS IV, P ConclusionBoth STN-DBS and GPi-DBS are effective in improving motor symptoms severity and complications, but GPi-DBS has a greater impact on motor fluctuations and motor experiences of daily living. These results suggest that the two targets should be considered equivalent in motor efficacy, with GPi-DBS as a valuable option in patients with prominent motor complications. The occurrence of suicides in STN-treated patients claims further attention in target selection.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.