Asleep Deep Brain Stimulation of the Nucleus Ventralis Intermedius for Essential Tremor Using Indirect Targeting and Interventional Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Single‐Institution Case Series. Issue 5 (27th April 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Gravbrot, Nicholas; Burket, Aaron; Saranathan, Manojkumar; Kasoff, Willard S.
• Is Part Of: Movement disorders clinical practice. Volume 7:Issue 5(2020)
• Page Start: 521
• Page End: 530
• Publication Date: 2020-04-27
• Subjects: asleep DBS -- Vim thalamus -- essential tremor -- interventional MRI; Movement Disorders; Movement disorders -- Periodicals; Movement disorders; Periodicals; Periodicals; 616
• DOI: 10.1002/mdc3.12955
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2330-1619

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Background: Literature on asleep deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the ventralis intermedius (Vim) nucleus in essential tremor is relatively sparse. Furthermore, controversy exists as to whether indirect ("consensus" or "atlas‐based") targeting of the Vim requires physiologic adjustment for effective clinical outcomes in DBS surgery. Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical results of asleep Vim DBS using indirect coordinates and real‐time interventional magnetic resonance imaging guidance. Methods: Retrospective review of a prospectively collected database was performed to identify patients with essential tremor undergoing asleep Vim DBS using interventional magnetic resonance imaging guidance. Stereotactic and clinical outcomes were abstracted and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 12 consecutive patients were identified, all of whom were available for 6‐month clinical follow‐up. Stereotactic (radial) error was 0.5 ± 0.2 mm on the left and 0.5 ± 0.3 mm on the right. Fahn‐Tolosa‐Marin tremor scores in the treated limb(s) decreased by 71.2% ± 31.0% ( P = 0.0088), The Essential Tremor Rating Assessment Scale activities of daily living improved by 74.9% ± 23.7% ( P < 0.0001), and The Essential Tremor Rating Assessment Scale performance improved by 64.3 ± 16.2% ( P = 0.0004). Surgical complications were mild and generally transient. Stimulation‐related side effects were similar to those reported in historical series of awake Vim DBS. Conclusions: Asleep Vim DBS using indirect targeting and interventional magnetic resonance imaging–guided placement is safe and effective, with 6‐month clinical results similar to those achieved with awake placement. These data support the use of asleep surgery in essential tremor and represent a baseline for comparison with future studies using more advanced targeting techniques.