You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 62 No. 8, August 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Original Contribution
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on ISI (24)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related letters
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Quality of Care, Other
 •Deep Brain Stimulation
 •Prognosis/ Outcomes
 •Movement Disorders
 •Parkinson Disease/ Parkinsonian Disorders
 •Alert me on articles by topic

Management of Referred Deep Brain Stimulation Failures

A Retrospective Analysis From 2 Movement Disorders Centers

Michael S. Okun, MD; Michele Tagliati, MD; Michael Pourfar, MD; Hubert H. Fernandez, MD; Ramon L. Rodriguez, MD; Ron L. Alterman, MD; Kelly D. Foote, MD

Arch Neurol. 2005;62:1250-1255.

Background  Since the Food and Drug Administration approved DBS, there has been a surge in the number of centers providing the procedure. There is currently no consensus regarding appropriate screening procedures, necessary training of individuals providing the therapy, the need for an interdisciplinary team, or guidelines for the management of complications. An increasing number of patients come to experienced DBS centers after unsatisfactory results from DBS surgery. An attempt is made herein to evaluate the reasons for DBS failure in a series of such patients and to make recommendations to improve overall DBS outcomes.

Objective  To improve outcomes of deep brain stimulation (DBS) surgery by analyzing a series of patients who had suboptimal results from DBS.

Methods  Forty-one consecutive patients complaining of suboptimal results from DBS surgery came to the University of Florida Movement Disorders Center, or to Beth Israel Movement Disorders Center, over a 24-month period. All patients had undergone implantation of DBS devices at outside medical centers. Each patient was evaluated by a movement disorders neurologist, and the complete medical record was reviewed. The DBS device for each patient was interrogated for adverse effects and programmed for maximal benefit. Postoperative imaging studies were evaluated whenever possible.

Results  The average age of patients was 63.4 years (range, 49-84 years). The indication for surgery (by record review) included 9 patients with essential tremor, 31 with Parkinson disease, and 1 with dystonia. The diagnoses after referral examination included 5 with essential tremor, 26 with Parkinson disease, 3 with Parkinson disease and dementia, 1 with Parkinson disease and essential tremor, 1 with corticobasal degeneration, 1 with dystonia, 2 with multiple system atrophy, 1 with progressive supranuclear palsy, and 1 with myoclonus. Issues related to inadequate preoperative screening: Thirty (73%) of 41 patients saw a movement disorders specialist prior to DBS implantation. Fourteen (34%) patients had neuropsychological testing, 4 (10%) did not have testing, and in 23 cases (56%), it could not be determined whether or not they were tested. Five (12%) of 41 patients had an inadequate medication trial, and 5 patients (12%) had significant cognitive dysfunction prior to their DBS implantation. Surgical and device-related complications: Nineteen (46%) of 41 patients had suboptimally placed electrodes. Seven electrodes (17%) were replaced with improvement. Three patients’ devices had failed due to end of battery life, 2 had infections, and 1 had a fractured lead. Programming and medication adjustments: Seven (17%) of 41 patients had no or poor access to programming. Two patients (5%) moved, and 2 physicians (5%) moved, creating issues with access to care. Eight patients (20%) required local follow-up (they flew to remote centers to have the surgery performed). Fifteen patients (37%) were inadequately programmed and improved significantly with reprogramming. Six patients (15%) experienced partial improvement with reprogramming, and 21 patients (51%) failed to improve despite extensive reprogramming. Thirty patients (73%) benefited from medication changes, 4 (10%) had antidepressants added to their regimens, and 1 (2%) had donepezil hydrochloride added. One patient’s carbidopa/levodopa (2%) was restarted after complete discontinuation. Outcomes: With the various postoperative interventions described, 21 (51%) of 41 patients had good outcomes, 6 (15%) had modest clinical improvement, and 14 (34%) did not improve.

Conclusions  With appropriate intervention, 51% of patients who complained of "failed" DBS procedures ultimately had good outcomes. Thirty-four percent of these patients had persistently poor outcomes despite maximal intervention. This case series provides important insights into reasons for "DBS failure" and proposes strategies to manage patients with DBS more effectively.


Author Affiliations: Department of Neurology, University of Florida, Movement Disorders Center, McKnight Brain Institute, Gainesville (Drs Okun, Fernandez, Rodriguez, and Foote); Department of Neurology, Beth Israel Medical Center, New York, NY (Drs Tagliati, Pourfar, and Alterman). Dr Tagliati is now with the Department of Neurology and Dr Alterman, the Department of Neurosurgery, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York. Dr Pourfar is now with the Department of Neurology, North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset, NY.


RELATED LETTERS

What Is Deep Brain Stimulation "Failure" and How Do We Manage Our Own Failures?
Marwan I. Hariz
Arch Neurol. 2005;62(12):1938.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

What Is Deep Brain Stimulation "Failure" and How Do We Manage Our Own Failures?—Reply
Michele Tagliati, Ron Alterman, Michael S. Okun, Hubert H. Fernandez, Ramon L. Rodriguez, Kelly D. Foote, Michael Pourfar, Sharon Metz, and Ruth Hagestuen
Arch Neurol. 2005;62(12):1938-1939.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Improvement in Parkinson Disease by Subthalamic Nucleus Stimulation Based on Electrode Placement: Effects of Reimplantation
Anheim et al.
Arch Neurol 2008;65:612-616.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Avoiding deep brain stimulation failures in Tourette syndrome
Okun et al.
J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 2008;79:111-112.
FULL TEXT  

Deep brain stimulation in 18 patients with severe Gilles de la Tourette syndrome refractory to treatment: the surgery and stimulation
Servello et al.
J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 2008;79:136-142.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Computational Analysis of Subthalamic Nucleus and Lenticular Fasciculus Activation During Therapeutic Deep Brain Stimulation
Miocinovic et al.
J. Neurophysiol. 2006;96:1569-1580.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Subthalamic Nucleus Stimulation: Improvements in Outcome With Reprogramming
Moro et al.
Arch Neurol 2006;63:1266-1272.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

What Is Deep Brain Stimulation "Failure" and How Do We Manage Our Own Failures?--Reply
Tagliati et al.
Arch Neurol 2005;62:1938-1939.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2005 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.