Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
The use of microelectrode recording (MER) during deep brain stimulation (DBS) for Parkinson Disease is controversial. Furthermore, in asleep DBS anesthesia can impair the ability to record single-cell electric activity.The purpose of this study was to describe our surgical and anesthesiologic protocol for MER assessment during asleep subthalamic nucleus (STN) DBS and to put our findings in the context of a systematic review of the literature. Sixty-three STN electrodes were implanted in 32 patients under general anesthesia. A frameless technique using O-Arm scanning was adopted in all cases. Total intravenous anesthesia, monitored with bispectral index, was administered using a target controlled infusion of both propofol and remifentanil. A systematic review of the literature with metanalysis on MER in asleep vs awake STN DBS for Parkinson Disease was performed. In our series, MER could be reliably recorded in all cases, impacting profoundly on electrode positioning: the final position was located within 2 mm from the planned target only in 42.9% cases. Depth modification > 2 mm was necessary in 21 cases (33.3%), while in 15 cases (23.8%) a different track was used. At 1-year follow-up we observed a significant reduction in LEDD, UPDRS Part III score off-medications, and UPDRS Part III score on medications, as compared to baseline. The systematic review of the literature yielded 23 papers; adding the cases here reported, overall 1258 asleep DBS cases using MER are described. This technique was safe and effective: metanalysis showed similar, if not better, outcome of asleep vs awake patients operated using MER. MER are a useful and reliable tool during asleep STN DBS, leading to a fine tuning of electrode position in the majority of cases. Collaboration between neurosurgeon, neurophysiologist and neuroanesthesiologist is crucial, since slight modifications of sedation level can impact profoundly on MER reliability.
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.