Implementation of New Technology in Patients with Chronic Deep Brain Stimulation: Switching from Non-Rechargeable Constant Voltage to Rechargeable Constant Current Stimulation

2019 ◽  
Vol 97 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 362-368
Author(s):  
Marc E. Wolf ◽  
Matti Klockziem ◽  
Olaf Majewski ◽  
Dirk Michael Schulte ◽  
Joachim K. Krauss ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Deep Brain Stimulation ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
New Technology ◽  
Constant Current ◽  
Constant Voltage ◽  
Constant Current Stimulation ◽  
Deep Brain

scholarly journals Constant current stimulation may improve apraxia of eyelid opening induced by deep brain stimulation

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 100565
Author(s):  
Katsuki Eguchi ◽  
Ichiro Yabe ◽  
Shinichi Shirai ◽  
Ikuko Iwata ◽  
Masaaki Matsushima ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Deep Brain Stimulation ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Constant Current ◽  
Constant Current Stimulation ◽  
Deep Brain

Constant Current versus Constant Voltage Subthalamic Nucleus Deep Brain Stimulation in Parkinson's Disease

2015 ◽  
Vol 93 (2) ◽  
pp. 114-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernando Ramirez de Noriega ◽  
Renana Eitan ◽  
Odeya Marmor ◽  
Adi Lavi ◽  
Eduard Linetzky ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Parkinson’S Disease ◽  
Parkinson's Disease ◽  
Deep Brain Stimulation ◽  
Subthalamic Nucleus ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Constant Current ◽  
Constant Voltage ◽  
Deep Brain

scholarly journals Patient, Caregiver, and Decliner Perspectives on Whether to Enroll in Adaptive Deep Brain Stimulation Research

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Outram ◽  
Katrina A. Muñoz ◽  
Kristin Kostick-Quenet ◽  
Clarissa E. Sanchez ◽  
Lavina Kalwani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Deep Brain Stimulation ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Research Study ◽  
New Technology ◽  
Innovative Technology ◽  
Theoretical Perspectives ◽  
Potential Risks ◽  
Deep Brain

This research study provides patient and caregiver perspectives as to whether or not to undergo adaptive deep brain stimulation (aDBS) research. A total of 51 interviews were conducted in a multi-site study including patients undergoing aDBS and their respective caregivers along with persons declining aDBS. Reasons highlighted for undergoing aDBS included hopes for symptom alleviation, declining quality of life, desirability of being in research, and altruism. The primary reasons for not undergoing aDBS issues were practical rather than specific to aDBS technology, although some persons highlighted a desire to not be the first to trial the new technology. These themes are discussed in the context of “push” factors wherein any form of surgical intervention is preferable to none and “pull” factors wherein opportunities to contribute to science combine with hopes and/or expectations for the alleviation of symptoms. We highlight the significance of study design in decision making. aDBS is an innovative technology and not a completely new technology. Many participants expressed value in being part of research as an important consideration. We suggest that there are important implications when comparing patient perspectives vs. theoretical perspectives on the choice for or against aDBS. Additionally, it will be important how we communicate with patients especially in reference to the complexity of study design. Ultimately, this study reveals that there are benefits and potential risks when choosing a research study that involves implantation of a medical device.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document