SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Can total electrical energy (TEED) after subthalamic DBS alter verbal fluency in Parkinson's disease patients? A preliminary evidence.

CNS Spectr · 2024-10-28

DOI: 10.1017/s1092852924000439PMID: 39463132

Check source for accessJournal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

ObjectiveDeep brain stimulation (DBS) of the subthalamic nucleus (STN) improves motor outcomes in Parkinson's disease (PD) but may have adverse long-term effects on specific cognitive domains. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between total electrical energy (TEED) delivered by DBS and postoperative changes in verbal fluency.MethodsSeventeen PD patients undergoing bilateral STN-DBS were assessed with the Alternate Verbal Fluency Battery (AVFB), which includes phonemic (PVF), semantic (SVF), and alternate verbal fluency (AVF) tests, before surgery (T0) and after 6 (T1) and 12 months (T2). Bilateral TEED and average TEEDM were recorded at T1 and T2. For each AVFB measurement, changes from T0 to T1 (Δ-01) and from T0 to T2 (Δ-02) were calculated.ResultsAt T1, PVF (p = 0.007) and SVF scores (p = 0.003) decreased significantly. TEED measures at T1 and T2 were unrelated to Δ-01 and Δ-02 scores, respectively. However, an inverse, marginally significant association was detected between the TEEDM and Δ-01 scores for the AVF (p = 0.041, against an αadjusted = 0.025).ConclusionsIn conclusion, the present reports provide preliminary evidence that TEED may not be responsible or only slightly responsible for the decline in VF performance after STN-DBS in PD.

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.