SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · PPR

<strong></strong>Comparing the Impact of Low Frequency vs High Frequency Deep Brain Stimulation in Patients with Parkinson’s Disease: A Systematic Review

· 2024-08-12

DOI: 10.20944/preprints202408.0819.v1

Check source for accessPreprintOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Aim: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) involves implanting electrodes in specific brain areas. High-frequency Stimulation (HFS) and low-frequency Stimulation (LFS) target motor and non-motor symptoms differently. DBS is crucial in Parkinson's disease treatment for managing medication-resistant symptoms and improving quality of life. This review aims to evaluate the differential impact of high-frequency and low-frequency deep brain stimulation (DBS) on motor symptoms in Parkinson's disease (PD) patients. This systematic review adheres to PRISMA guidelines and focuses on clinical studies involving human subjects. Methods: Systematic search in electronic databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, Science Direct, Cochrane Collaboration Database of Randomized Trials) was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to 13th July 2024. Results: Among 126 pooled patients from 8 RCTs, it was found that LFS significantly improved gait stability, swallowing, and verbal fluency with minimal adverse effects. Conversely, HFS was effective in reducing rigidity and tremor but was associated with potential side effects such as gait and speech impairment. Conclusion: The review highlights the nuanced effects of STN-DBS frequencies in Parkinson's treatment, suggesting high-frequency improves rigidity and tremor but may cause side effects, while low-frequency enhances gait stability and speech, necessitating further research for optimized, patient-specific therapies.

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.