Luigi G Remore, Ziad Rifi, Evangelia Tsolaki, Michael J Ward, Wenxin Wei, Meskerem Tolossa, Marco Locatelli, Ausaf A Bari
{"title":"丘脑腹侧中间核、齿状突触束和尾状突触束:刺激哪种结构可持续控制本质性震颤患者的震颤?","authors":"Luigi G Remore, Ziad Rifi, Evangelia Tsolaki, Michael J Ward, Wenxin Wei, Meskerem Tolossa, Marco Locatelli, Ausaf A Bari","doi":"10.3171/2024.3.FOCUS2425","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Essential tremor (ET) is the most common movement disorder. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) targeting the ventral intermediate nucleus (VIM) is known to improve symptoms in patients with medication-resistant ET. However, the clinical effectiveness of VIM-DBS may vary, and other targets have been proposed. The authors aimed to investigate whether the same anatomical structure is responsible for tremor control both immediately after VIM-DBS and at later follow-up evaluations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Of 68 electrodes from 41 patients with ET, the authors mapped the distances of the active contact from the VIM, the dentatorubrothalamic tract (DRTT), and the caudal zona incerta (cZI) and compared them using Friedman's ANOVA and the Wilcoxon signed-rank follow-up test. The same distances were also compared between the initially planned target and the final implantation site after intraoperative macrostimulation. Finally, the comparison among the three structures was repeated for 16 electrodes whose active contact was changed after a mean 37.5 months follow-up to improve tremor control.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After lead implantation, the VIM was statistically significantly closer to the active contact than both the DRTT (p = 0.008) and cZI (p < 0.001). This result did not change if the target was moved based on intraoperative macrostimulation. At the last follow-up, the active contact distance from the VIM was always significantly less than that of the cZI (p < 0.001), but the distance from the DRTT was reduced and even less than the distance from the VIM.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients receiving VIM-DBS, the VIM itself is the structure driving the anti-tremor effect and remains more effective than the cZI, even years after implantation. Nevertheless, the role of the DRTT may become more important over time and may help sustain the clinical efficacy when the habituation from the VIM stimulation ensues.</p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ventral intermediate nucleus of the thalamus, dentatorubrothalamic tract, and caudal zona incerta: stimulation of which structure provides ongoing tremor control in patients with essential tremor?\",\"authors\":\"Luigi G Remore, Ziad Rifi, Evangelia Tsolaki, Michael J Ward, Wenxin Wei, Meskerem Tolossa, Marco Locatelli, Ausaf A Bari\",\"doi\":\"10.3171/2024.3.FOCUS2425\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Essential tremor (ET) is the most common movement disorder. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) targeting the ventral intermediate nucleus (VIM) is known to improve symptoms in patients with medication-resistant ET. However, the clinical effectiveness of VIM-DBS may vary, and other targets have been proposed. The authors aimed to investigate whether the same anatomical structure is responsible for tremor control both immediately after VIM-DBS and at later follow-up evaluations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Of 68 electrodes from 41 patients with ET, the authors mapped the distances of the active contact from the VIM, the dentatorubrothalamic tract (DRTT), and the caudal zona incerta (cZI) and compared them using Friedman's ANOVA and the Wilcoxon signed-rank follow-up test. The same distances were also compared between the initially planned target and the final implantation site after intraoperative macrostimulation. Finally, the comparison among the three structures was repeated for 16 electrodes whose active contact was changed after a mean 37.5 months follow-up to improve tremor control.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After lead implantation, the VIM was statistically significantly closer to the active contact than both the DRTT (p = 0.008) and cZI (p < 0.001). This result did not change if the target was moved based on intraoperative macrostimulation. At the last follow-up, the active contact distance from the VIM was always significantly less than that of the cZI (p < 0.001), but the distance from the DRTT was reduced and even less than the distance from the VIM.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients receiving VIM-DBS, the VIM itself is the structure driving the anti-tremor effect and remains more effective than the cZI, even years after implantation. Nevertheless, the role of the DRTT may become more important over time and may help sustain the clinical efficacy when the habituation from the VIM stimulation ensues.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":3,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3171/2024.3.FOCUS2425\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"材料科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3171/2024.3.FOCUS2425","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:震颤(ET)是最常见的运动障碍。众所周知,针对腹侧中间核(VIM)的脑深部刺激(DBS)可改善药物耐受性 ET 患者的症状。然而,VIM-DBS 的临床疗效可能各不相同,而且还有人提出了其他靶点。作者旨在研究在 VIM-DBS 术后立即和随后的随访评估中,是否有相同的解剖结构对震颤控制起作用:在 41 位 ET 患者的 68 个电极中,作者绘制了活动触点与 VIM、齿突下丘脑束 (DRTT) 和尾椎内侧带 (cZI) 的距离图,并使用弗里德曼方差分析和 Wilcoxon 符号秩随访检验对其进行了比较。此外,还比较了最初计划的目标与术中大刺激后最终植入部位之间的距离。最后,在平均 37.5 个月的随访后,为改善震颤控制而改变了主动接触的 16 个电极也重复了三种结构之间的比较:结果:导联植入后,VIM 在统计学上明显比 DRTT(p = 0.008)和 cZI(p < 0.001)更接近主动触点。如果根据术中大刺激移动目标,这一结果也不会改变。在最后一次随访中,与 VIM 的主动接触距离始终显著小于与 cZI 的主动接触距离(p < 0.001),但与 DRTT 的距离有所缩短,甚至小于与 VIM 的距离:结论:在接受 VIM-DBS 治疗的患者中,VIM 本身是驱动抗眩晕效果的结构,即使在植入多年后,其效果仍优于 cZI。然而,随着时间的推移,DRTT 的作用可能会变得更加重要,当 VIM 刺激产生习惯性反应时,DRTT 可能有助于维持临床疗效。
Ventral intermediate nucleus of the thalamus, dentatorubrothalamic tract, and caudal zona incerta: stimulation of which structure provides ongoing tremor control in patients with essential tremor?
Objective: Essential tremor (ET) is the most common movement disorder. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) targeting the ventral intermediate nucleus (VIM) is known to improve symptoms in patients with medication-resistant ET. However, the clinical effectiveness of VIM-DBS may vary, and other targets have been proposed. The authors aimed to investigate whether the same anatomical structure is responsible for tremor control both immediately after VIM-DBS and at later follow-up evaluations.
Methods: Of 68 electrodes from 41 patients with ET, the authors mapped the distances of the active contact from the VIM, the dentatorubrothalamic tract (DRTT), and the caudal zona incerta (cZI) and compared them using Friedman's ANOVA and the Wilcoxon signed-rank follow-up test. The same distances were also compared between the initially planned target and the final implantation site after intraoperative macrostimulation. Finally, the comparison among the three structures was repeated for 16 electrodes whose active contact was changed after a mean 37.5 months follow-up to improve tremor control.
Results: After lead implantation, the VIM was statistically significantly closer to the active contact than both the DRTT (p = 0.008) and cZI (p < 0.001). This result did not change if the target was moved based on intraoperative macrostimulation. At the last follow-up, the active contact distance from the VIM was always significantly less than that of the cZI (p < 0.001), but the distance from the DRTT was reduced and even less than the distance from the VIM.
Conclusions: In patients receiving VIM-DBS, the VIM itself is the structure driving the anti-tremor effect and remains more effective than the cZI, even years after implantation. Nevertheless, the role of the DRTT may become more important over time and may help sustain the clinical efficacy when the habituation from the VIM stimulation ensues.