scholarly journals Proactive inhibition is not modified by deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease: An electrical neuroimaging study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael De Pretto ◽  
Michael Mouthon ◽  
Ines Debove ◽  
Claudio Pollo ◽  
Michael Schüpbach ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Parkinson’S Disease ◽  
Parkinson's Disease ◽  
Deep Brain Stimulation ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Proactive Inhibition ◽  
Electrical Neuroimaging ◽  
Neuroimaging Study ◽  
Deep Brain

Influence of deep brain stimulation and levodopa on signs and symptoms in Parkinson's disease

2009 ◽  
Vol 36 (S 02) ◽  
Author(s):  
J Gierthmühlen ◽  
P Arning ◽  
G Wasner ◽  
A Binder ◽  
J Herzog ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Parkinson’S Disease ◽  
Parkinson's Disease ◽  
Deep Brain Stimulation ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Deep Brain

Visual Effects of Deep Brain Stimulation in a Patient with Parkinson’s Disease

2019 ◽  
pp. 158-173
Keyword(s):  
Parkinson’S Disease ◽  
Parkinson's Disease ◽  
Deep Brain Stimulation ◽  
Visual System ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Neurodegenerative Disorder ◽  
Initial Examination ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Deep Brain ◽  
Cover Test

Background: Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder caused by a dopamine deficiency that presents with motor symptoms. Visual disorders can occur concomitantly but are frequently overlooked. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has been an effective treatment to improve tremors, stiffness and overall mobility, but little is known about its effects on the visual system. Case Report: A 75-year-old Caucasian male with PD presented with longstanding binocular diplopia. On baseline examination, the best-corrected visual acuity was 20/25 in each eye. On observation, he had noticeable tremors with an unsteady gait. Distance alternating cover test showed exophoria with a right hyperphoria. Near alternating cover test revealed a significantly larger exophoria accompanied by a reduced near point of convergence. Additional testing with a 24-2 Humphrey visual field and optical coherence tomography (OCT) of the nerve and macula were unremarkable. The patient underwent DBS implantation five weeks after initial examination, and the device was activated four weeks thereafter. At follow up, the patient still complained of intermittent diplopia. There was no significant change in the manifest refraction or prism correction. On observation, the patient had remarkably improved tremors with a steady gait. All parameters measured were unchanged. The patient was evaluated again seven months after device activation. Although vergence ranges at all distances were improved, the patient was still symptomatic for intermittent diplopia. OCT scans of the optic nerve showed borderline but symmetric thinning in each eye. All other parameters measured were unchanged. Conclusion: The case found no significant changes on ophthalmic examination after DBS implantation and activation in a patient with PD. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there are no other cases in the literature that investigated the effects of DBS on the visual system pathway in a patient with PD before and after DBS implantation and activation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document