Comparison of intraoperative imaging guided versus microelectrode recording guided deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease: A meta-analysis

Tsung-Che Chuang , Jia-Qi Tan , Shu-Mei Chen
{"title":"Comparison of intraoperative imaging guided versus microelectrode recording guided deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease: A meta-analysis","authors":"Tsung-Che Chuang ,&nbsp;Jia-Qi Tan ,&nbsp;Shu-Mei Chen","doi":"10.1016/j.neucie.2022.09.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Traditionally, most centers would use microelectrode<span> recording (MER) to refine targeting in deep brain stimulation (DBS) surgery. In recent years, intraoperative imaging (IMG) guided DBS has become an alternative way to verify lead placement. Currently, there is still controversy surrounding the necessity of MER or IMG for DBS. This meta-analysis aims to explore lead accuracy, clinical efficacy and safety between IMG and MER guided DBS for Parkinson's disease (PD).</span></p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library were searched up to Mar, 2021 for studies reporting comparisons between IMG and MER guided DBS for PD. Subgroup analysis was conducted to assess effects of different IMG technology and DBS targeting site.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p><span>Six studies, comprising of 478 patients were included in our analysis. The mean difference between the two implantation techniques in stereotactic accuracy, lead passes per trajectory, improvement% of Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale part III and levodopa equivalent daily dose were −0.45 (95% confidence interval, CI</span> <!-->=<!--> <!-->−1.11 to 0.20), −0.18 (95% CI<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->−0.41 to 0.06), 3.40 (95% CI<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->−5.36 to 12.16), and 5.00 (95% CI<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->−1.40 to 11.39), respectively. No significant differences were observed in each adverse event and operation/procedure time between the two implantation techniques.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Both IMG and MER guided DBS offered effective control of motor symptoms for PD. Besides, IMG guided is comparable to MER guided DBS, in terms of safety, accuracy and efficiency. It is recommended for each hospital to select DBS guidance technology based on available resources and equipment.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":74273,"journal":{"name":"Neurocirugia (English Edition)","volume":"34 5","pages":"Pages 228-237"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurocirugia (English Edition)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2529849622001046","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Traditionally, most centers would use microelectrode recording (MER) to refine targeting in deep brain stimulation (DBS) surgery. In recent years, intraoperative imaging (IMG) guided DBS has become an alternative way to verify lead placement. Currently, there is still controversy surrounding the necessity of MER or IMG for DBS. This meta-analysis aims to explore lead accuracy, clinical efficacy and safety between IMG and MER guided DBS for Parkinson's disease (PD).

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library were searched up to Mar, 2021 for studies reporting comparisons between IMG and MER guided DBS for PD. Subgroup analysis was conducted to assess effects of different IMG technology and DBS targeting site.

Results

Six studies, comprising of 478 patients were included in our analysis. The mean difference between the two implantation techniques in stereotactic accuracy, lead passes per trajectory, improvement% of Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale part III and levodopa equivalent daily dose were −0.45 (95% confidence interval, CI = −1.11 to 0.20), −0.18 (95% CI = −0.41 to 0.06), 3.40 (95% CI = −5.36 to 12.16), and 5.00 (95% CI = −1.40 to 11.39), respectively. No significant differences were observed in each adverse event and operation/procedure time between the two implantation techniques.

Conclusions

Both IMG and MER guided DBS offered effective control of motor symptoms for PD. Besides, IMG guided is comparable to MER guided DBS, in terms of safety, accuracy and efficiency. It is recommended for each hospital to select DBS guidance technology based on available resources and equipment.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
术中成像引导与微电极记录引导脑深部刺激治疗帕金森病的比较:一项荟萃分析
背景传统上,大多数中心都会在脑深部刺激(DBS)手术中使用微电极记录(MER)来细化靶向。近年来,术中成像(IMG)引导的DBS已成为验证导线放置的替代方法。目前,DBS是否需要MER或IMG仍存在争议。本荟萃分析旨在探讨IMG和MER引导的DBS治疗帕金森病(PD)的铅准确性、临床疗效和安全性。方法截至2021年3月,检索PubMed、Embase、Web of Science、Cochrane Library,检索IMG和MER引导的DBS治疗PD的比较研究。进行亚组分析,以评估不同IMG技术和DBS靶点的效果。结果我们的分析包括6项研究,包括478名患者。两种植入技术在立体定向准确性、每个轨迹的导线通过率、统一帕金森病评定量表第三部分的改善率和左旋多巴等效日剂量方面的平均差异分别为−0.45(95%置信区间,CI=−1.11至0.20)、−0.18(95%CI=−0.41至0.06)、3.40(95%CI=−5.36至12.16)和5.00(95%CI=−1.40至11.39),分别地两种植入技术在每次不良事件和手术/程序时间方面均未观察到显著差异。结论IMG和MER引导的DBS均能有效控制PD的运动症状。此外,IMG引导的DBS在安全性、准确性和有效性方面与MER指导的DBS相当。建议每家医院根据可用资源和设备选择DBS引导技术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Association of the C-reactive protein/albumin ratio with the prognosis of Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: A systematic review. Moyamoya disease and moyamoya syndrome: A case series from multicentre private hospitals in Indonesia. Trigeminal neuralgia secondary to minor size lesion, anatomical considerations and pathophysiology. Utility of very high-pressure valves in persistent symptomatic shunt overdrainage. Idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: A critical analysis of its underrepresentation across Italian medical-scientific societies in the last 5 years.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1