Jessica A Karl, Jessica M Joyce, Bichun Ouyang, Chandler E Gill, Leo Verhagen Metman
{"title":"Directional Deep Brain Stimulation Programming: Is the Segment Clearly Identifiable and Stable Over Time?","authors":"Jessica A Karl, Jessica M Joyce, Bichun Ouyang, Chandler E Gill, Leo Verhagen Metman","doi":"10.1002/mdc3.14120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In our early experience programming directional deep brain stimulation (d-DBS) in PD, we found the optimal directional segment changed over time in some patients. To determine the frequency/reasons for this we examined whether (1) different programmers would identify the same segment as \"optimal\"; and (2) the same programmer would select the same \"optimal\" segment over time. We hypothesized there would be a moderately high level of agreement on optimal electrode selection between different assessors and repeated assessments by the same evaluator.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a prospective, double-blind investigation evaluating the reliability and stability of programming d-DBS. Each patient underwent a mono-polar survey four times (2 time points by 2 separate assessors). The primary aim was the inter-rater agreement of selecting the optimal electrode at 1 and 6 months. The secondary aim was to determine the intra-rater agreement of selecting the optimal electrode from 1 to 6 months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-one patients were enrolled. There was fair inter-rater agreement at 1 month and moderate at 6 months. There was minimal intra-rater agreement between 1 and 6 months.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The data refuted our hypothesis. Potential reasons for low agreement include (1) the arduous/subjective nature of identifying the optimal electrode in d-DBS systems, especially in well-placed electrodes; and/or (2) acute changes to the location of stimulation delivery offering temporary improvement in symptoms. Key takeaways gathered were it may, (1) behoove the programmer to explore different electrode montages after a period of time; and (2) be more efficient to review the directional electrode montage only when dictated by clinical symptoms/disease progression.</p>","PeriodicalId":19029,"journal":{"name":"Movement Disorders Clinical Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11329556/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Movement Disorders Clinical Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/mdc3.14120","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: In our early experience programming directional deep brain stimulation (d-DBS) in PD, we found the optimal directional segment changed over time in some patients. To determine the frequency/reasons for this we examined whether (1) different programmers would identify the same segment as "optimal"; and (2) the same programmer would select the same "optimal" segment over time. We hypothesized there would be a moderately high level of agreement on optimal electrode selection between different assessors and repeated assessments by the same evaluator.
Methods: This was a prospective, double-blind investigation evaluating the reliability and stability of programming d-DBS. Each patient underwent a mono-polar survey four times (2 time points by 2 separate assessors). The primary aim was the inter-rater agreement of selecting the optimal electrode at 1 and 6 months. The secondary aim was to determine the intra-rater agreement of selecting the optimal electrode from 1 to 6 months.
Results: Twenty-one patients were enrolled. There was fair inter-rater agreement at 1 month and moderate at 6 months. There was minimal intra-rater agreement between 1 and 6 months.
Discussion: The data refuted our hypothesis. Potential reasons for low agreement include (1) the arduous/subjective nature of identifying the optimal electrode in d-DBS systems, especially in well-placed electrodes; and/or (2) acute changes to the location of stimulation delivery offering temporary improvement in symptoms. Key takeaways gathered were it may, (1) behoove the programmer to explore different electrode montages after a period of time; and (2) be more efficient to review the directional electrode montage only when dictated by clinical symptoms/disease progression.
期刊介绍:
Movement Disorders Clinical Practice- is an online-only journal committed to publishing high quality peer reviewed articles related to clinical aspects of movement disorders which broadly include phenomenology (interesting case/case series/rarities), investigative (for e.g- genetics, imaging), translational (phenotype-genotype or other) and treatment aspects (clinical guidelines, diagnostic and treatment algorithms)