Deep brain stimulation surgical timing, outcomes, and prognostic factors in patients with Parkinson's disease: A Chinese retrospective multi

Deep brain stimulation surgical timing, outcomes, and prognostic factors in patients with Parkinson's disease: A Chinese retrospective multicenter cohort study.

Wang S, Hu W, Gao Y, Wang A, Chen L, Liang Z, Zhang S, Long H, Li W, Niu C, Liu W, Cai G, Ji Y, Tam J, Xu Q, Yang A, Shi L, Zhang H, Han C, Zhu G, Bai Y, Jiang L, Li T, Xue S, Wang H, Li Y, Xiong C, Lozano AM, Ramirez-Zamora A, Zhang W, Meng F, Zhang J, DBS-PDCC2 Collaboration.

PLoS Med · 2025-08-01

Research overview

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

BackgroundDeep brain stimulation (DBS) has been increasingly introduced for patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). However, there has been extensive controversy regarding its surgical timing. This study aimed to evaluate surgical outcomes of DBS across different PD durations and identify key prognostic factors.Methods and findingsIn this multicenter cohort study, patients with PD who underwent subthalamic DBS between 1/1/2011 and 12/31/2020 from seven representative Chinese national centers were included. Two-year follow-up data were analyzed, accordingly. These patients were classified into short (ConclusionsDBS significantly improved motor, neuropsychological, and quality-of-life outcomes across all PD durations, with the most substantial benefits observed in mid-duration (5-10 years) patients. While levodopa response was a consistent positive prognostic factor for motor response, caution is warranted for short-duration patients with rapidly progressive motor symptoms, as they exhibited less favorable outcomes.

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.