scholarly journals Deep Brain Stimulation for Cockayne Syndrome-Associated Movement Disorder

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph S. Domino ◽  
Rose Gelineau-Morel ◽  
Christian Kaufman
Keyword(s):  
Deep Brain Stimulation ◽  
Movement Disorder ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Cockayne Syndrome ◽  
Deep Brain

Deep Brain Stimulation in an Additional Patient With ADCY5-Related Movement Disorder

2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 438-439 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inge A. Meijer ◽  
Joan Miravite ◽  
Brian H. Kopell ◽  
Naomi Lubarr
Keyword(s):  
Deep Brain Stimulation ◽  
Movement Disorder ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Additional Patient ◽  
Deep Brain

Dystonia

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeri Yvonne Williams ◽  
David G Standaert
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Deep Brain Stimulation ◽  
Movement Disorder ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Age Of Onset ◽  
Anticholinergic Drugs ◽  
Body Parts ◽  
Botulinum Toxins ◽  
Deep Brain

Dystonia is a movement disorder characterized by sustained or intermittent muscle contractions. Classification of dystonia is based on age of onset, distribution of body parts affected, and underlying etiology. A large number of different genetic forms of dystonia have been discovered in recent years. Although these syndromes are important to recognize, the majority of dystonias encountered in clinical practice are of unknown cause. Therapy of dystonia includes medications, particularly anticholinergic drugs, use of botulinum toxins, and deep brain stimulation.

Successful bilateral deep brain stimulation of the globus pallidus internus for persistent status dystonicus and generalized chorea

2010 ◽  
Vol 113 (3) ◽  
pp. 634-638 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diana Apetauerova ◽  
Clemens M. Schirmer ◽  
Jay L. Shils ◽  
Janet Zani ◽  
Jeffrey E. Arle
Keyword(s):  
Deep Brain Stimulation ◽  
Movement Disorder ◽  
Globus Pallidus ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Globus Pallidus Internus ◽  
Battery Life ◽  
Status Dystonicus ◽  
Hyperkinetic Movement Disorder ◽  
Deep Brain ◽  
Stimulation Of

The authors report the cases of 2 young male patients (aged 16 and 26 years) with dystonic cerebral palsy of unknown origin, who developed status dystonicus, an acute and persistent combination of generalized dystonia and chorea. Both patients developed status dystonicus after undergoing general anesthesia, and in 1 case, after administration of metoclopramide. In attempting to control this acute hyperkinetic movement disorder, multiple medication trials failed in both cases and patients required prolonged intubation and sedation with propofol. Bilateral deep brain stimulation of the globus pallidus internus (4 and 2 months after the onset of symptoms in the first and second case, respectively) produced immediate resolution of the hyperkinetic movement disorder in each case. Deep brain stimulation provided persistent suppression of the dystonic movement potential after a follow-up of 30 and 34 months, respectively, as demonstrated by the reemergence of severe dystonia during the end of battery life of the implantable pulse generators that was readily controlled by exchange of the generators in each case.

scholarly journals Modeling mechanisms of tremor reduction for essential tremor using symmetric biphasic DBS

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shane Lee ◽  
Wael F Asaad ◽  
Stephanie R Jones
Keyword(s):  
Deep Brain Stimulation ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Movement Disorder ◽  
Essential Tremor ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Future Studies ◽  
Tremor Frequency ◽  
Ventral Intermediate Nucleus ◽  
Different Shapes ◽  
Deep Brain

AbstractEssential tremor (ET) is the most common movement disorder, in which the primary symptom is a prominent, involuntary 4–10 Hz movement. For severe, medication refractory cases, deep brain stimulation (DBS) targeting the ventral intermediate nucleus of the thalamus (VIM) can be an effective treatment for cessation of tremor and is thought to work in part by disrupting tremor frequency oscillations (TFOs) in VIM. However, DBS is not universally effective and may be further disrupting cerebellar-mediated activity in the VIM. Here, we applied biophysically detailed computational modeling to investigate whether the efficacy of DBS is affected by the mechanism of generation of TFOs or by the pattern of stimulation. We simulated the effects of DBS using standard, asymmetric pulses as well as biphasic, symmetric pulses to understand biophysical mechanisms of how DBS disrupts TFOs generated either extrinsically or intrinsically. The model results suggested that the efficacy of DBS in the VIM is affected by the mechanism of generation of TFOs. Symmetric biphasic DBS reduced TFOs more than standard DBS in both networks, and these effects were stronger in the intrinsic network. For intrinsic tremor frequency activity, symmetric biphasic DBS was more effective at reducing TFOs. Simulated non-tremor signals were also transmitted during symmetric biphasic DBS, suggesting that this type of DBS may help to reduce side effects caused by disruption of the cerebellothalamocortical pathway. Biophysical details in the model provided a mechanistic interpretation of the cellular and network dynamics contributing to these effects that can be empirically tested in future studies.Significance StatementEssential tremor (ET) is a common movement disorder, whose primary symptom is an involuntary rhythmic movement of the limbs or head. An area of the human tha-lamus demonstrates electrical activity that oscillates at the frequencies of tremor, and deep brain stimulation (DBS) in this area can reduce tremor. It is not fully understood how DBS affects tremor frequency activity in the thalamus, and studying different patterns of DBS stimulation may help to clarify these mechanisms. We created a computational model of different shapes of DBS and studied how they reduce different hypothesized generators of tremor frequency activity. A greater understanding of how DBS affects the thalamus may lead to improved treatments to reduce tremor and alleviate side effects in patients with ET.

A multicenter, open-label, controlled trial on acceptance, convenience, and complications of rechargeable internal pulse generators for deep brain stimulation: the Multi Recharge Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 133 (3) ◽  
pp. 821-829 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Jakobs ◽  
Ann-Kristin Helmers ◽  
Michael Synowitz ◽  
Philipp J. Slotty ◽  
Judith M. Anthofer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Deep Brain Stimulation ◽  
Movement Disorder ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Independent Study ◽  
Ordinal Scale ◽  
Battery Life ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Deep Brain

OBJECTIVERechargeable neurostimulators for deep brain stimulation have been available since 2008, promising longer battery life and fewer replacement surgeries compared to non-rechargeable systems. Long-term data on how recharging affects movement disorder patients are sparse. This is the first multicenter, patient-focused, industry-independent study on rechargeable neurostimulators.METHODSFour neurosurgical centers sent a questionnaire to all adult movement disorder patients with a rechargeable neurostimulator implanted at the time of the trial. The primary endpoint was the convenience of the recharging process rated on an ordinal scale from “very hard” (1) to “very easy” (5). Secondary endpoints were charge burden (time spent per week on recharging), user confidence, and complication rates. Endpoints were compared for several subgroups.RESULTSDatasets of 195 movement disorder patients (66.1% of sent questionnaires) with Parkinson’s disease (PD), tremor, or dystonia were returned and included in the analysis. Patients had a mean age of 61.3 years and the device was implanted for a mean of 40.3 months. The overall convenience of recharging was rated as “easy” (4). The mean charge burden was 122 min/wk and showed a positive correlation with duration of therapy; 93.8% of users felt confident recharging the device. The rate of surgical revisions was 4.1%, and the infection rate was 2.1%. Failed recharges occurred in 8.7% of patients, and 3.6% of patients experienced an interruption of therapy because of a failed recharge. Convenience ratings by PD patients were significantly worse than ratings by dystonia patients. Caregivers recharged the device for the patient in 12.3% of cases. Patients who switched from a non-rechargeable to a rechargeable neurostimulator found recharging to be significantly less convenient at a higher charge burden than did patients whose primary implant was rechargeable. Age did not have a significant impact on any endpoint.CONCLUSIONSOverall, patients with movement disorders rated recharging as easy, with low complication rates and acceptable charge burden.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document