Abstract
Surgical treatments have transformed the management of Parkinson’s disease (PD). Therapeutic options available for the management of PD motor complications include deep brain stimulation (DBS), ablative or lesioning procedures (pallidotomy, thalamotomy, subthalamotomy), and dopaminergic medication infusion devices. The decision to pursue these advanced treatment options is typically done by a multidisciplinary team by considering factors such as the patient’s clinical characteristics, efficacy, ease of use, and risks of therapy with a goal to improve PD symptoms and quality of life. DBS has become the most widely used surgical therapy, although there is a re-emergence of interest in ablative procedures with the introduction of MR-guided focused ultrasound. In this article, we review DBS and lesioning procedures for PD, including indications, selection process, and management strategies.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
When to Consider Surgical Therapies in Parkinson’s Disease
Oral medications, including dopaminergic and nondopaminergic options, are the mainstay of management in Parkinson’s disease (PD). Early in the disease course, medical management is effective in controlling motor symptoms and improving quality of life in a majority of patients. However, with disease progression and chronic use of dopaminergic therapies, patients can develop motor fluctuations (off periods, dose failures) and dyskinesia. For some patients, even early in the disease course, medication side effects can limit their therapeutic effectiveness, or tremor may be medication refractory. Surgical and other advanced treatment options should therefore be considered for patients whose symptoms cannot be adequately managed by oral medications alone. Prior to considering such advanced therapies, generally, the dose and frequency of dopaminergic medications should be optimized.
The currently available advanced treatments include deep brain stimulation (DBS), ablative or lesioning procedures, and dopaminergic medication infusion devices (Fig. 1). These therapies have one of the following two effects: improvement of motor symptoms through targeted stimulation/ablation of the motor circuit and continuous dopaminergic medication delivery. The decision to pursue advanced therapies is typically guided by unsatisfactory control of motor symptoms, although both positive and negative effects on non-motor symptoms may often be observed.
Because there is no evidence to date that these therapies are disease modifying, the decision to pursue advanced treatments depends largely on the patient’s satisfaction with his or her symptom control and ability to carry out desired activities. In addition to medical appropriateness, which is discussed in detail in following sections, the choice of advanced therapy and its timing should also be guided by the patient’s priorities and expectations (which need to be adequately addressed), personal tolerance to risk, and ability to comply with therapy requirements (e.g., clinic visits, device management). Advanced therapies should not be viewed as the last resort reserved for patients with late-stage disease. The term “window of opportunity” is sometimes used in reference to DBS surgery to indicate that it should be offered/pursued while the patient can functionally benefit from the procedure; similarly, this concept is applicable to lesioning procedures. Lack of accurate information can make a patient either unnecessarily fearful or inappropriately enthusiastic. Therefore, a comprehensive and timely discussion of advanced therapy options should be available to all patients with PD.
Multidisciplinary Presurgical Evaluation
Several factors are taken into consideration to determine the appropriateness and to optimize the outcome of a surgical therapy in patients with PD. A careful presurgical evaluation by a multidisciplinary team is recommended to assess candidacy as different motor symptoms may have varying response to the surgical therapy. A multidisciplinary team typically consists of a movement disorders neurologist, a neurosurgeon, a neuropsychologist, a psychiatrist/psychologist, and allied health professionals (physical, speech, and/or occupational therapists). As some neurology practices may not have a multidisciplinary team for surgical evaluation, the primary neurologist should refer potential surgical candidates to a center with expertise in these procedures. An initial consultation with a movement disorders neurologist can be particularly helpful to 1) confirm the diagnosis, 2) review the appropriateness of oral medication trials, and 3) assess motor and non-motor symptoms and their potential responsiveness to advanced therapy options. Important issues to address prior to the surgery include patient and family expectations, and a detailed discussion of potential risks and benefits of the surgical procedure. This should be followed by comprehensive evaluation by other team members. Different factors are assessed including neurocognitive and psychiatric profile, neuroimaging, on–off levodopa challenge, surgical risks, and current level of function. After evaluations are completed, team members meet in an interdisciplinary conference to review patient factors to determine which surgical therapy is appropriate for the patient and details including the brain target, bilateral versus unilateral procedure, staged versus simultaneous, and type of surgical technique (e.g., awake vs asleep, type of lesioning procedure, etc.) are discussed. Availability of social and clinical support postsurgery should also be taken into consideration. Any issues or concerns related to the patient and surgery should be discussed and addressed prior to the surgical therapy. Some patients may not be considered for surgical therapy after comprehensive evaluation; in those cases, alternative options for management and improving quality of life should be discussed.
Deep Brain Stimulation
DBS therapy involves modulation of neural networks with electric currents delivered through surgically implanted electrodes connected to a neurostimulator. Since the introduction of levodopa, DBS therapy is considered as the second most important breakthrough for PD treatment.
Introduction of the human stereotaxis apparatus by Wycis and Spiegel in 1947 marked the beginning of closed stereotactic neurosurgery [1]. Subsequently, during the 1950s, stereotactic atlases were introduced and there was an increase in stereotactic surgery research [2, 3]. During this time, Irving Cooper made a serendipitous observation that pallidal infarct due to ligation of the anterior choroidal artery alleviates parkinsonian symptoms, which further emphasized the role of basal ganglia in motor control [4]. Consequently, surgical management of PD was focused on thalamotomy and pallidotomy surgeries [2, 5]. Intraoperative electrical stimulation was used during ablative surgeries to aid in target localization. Although observations that thalamic stimulation can cause tremor suppression were reported, these findings were not well defined [6, 7]. With the discovery of levodopa [8], surgical therapies declined significantly during the the 1960s and 1970s. However, the long-term motor complications soon became apparent and interest in surgical therapies was regained [9, 10]. In the 1980s, physiological studies in animal models expanded the understanding of basal ganglia pathways and the pathophysiology of PD [11, 12].
In 1987, Benabid and colleagues [13] reported reversible suppression of tremor with high-frequency thalamic electrical stimulation. This procedure offered a reversible and adjustable approach for controlling tremor compared to lesioning, and eventually, DBS was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for unilateral PD tremor and essential tremor (ET) in 1997 [14, 15]. Following this development, based on previous experience with pallidotomy and the observation of marked improvement in parkinsonism with subthalamic nucleus (STN) lesions in primates [16, 17], high-frequency stimulation in the globus pallidus pars interna (GPi) and STN was performed [18, 19] and, after the results of clinical trials, DBS therapy for PD was approved by the FDA in 2003. The field of DBS is constantly evolving with an advancement in the understanding of neural mechanisms, innovation in technology, and development of next-generation DBS devices.
Patient Selection
Clinical outcomes of DBS therapy depend on patient selection, accurate lead placement in the therapeutic target, postoperative DBS programming, and medication adjustment. Careful selection of appropriate candidates is crucial for favorable outcomes as DBS is not beneficial for all patients with PD. It is estimated that 30% of unfavorable DBS outcomes could be related to inappropriate patient selection [20]. Patients with a diagnosis of idiopathic PD with levodopa-induced motor complications or medication refractory tremor with no symptoms/signs concerning for atypical parkinsonism (early postural instability, supranuclear gaze palsy, severe early dysautonomia) are ideal candidates for DBS therapy. Patients with postural instability, uncontrolled neuropsychiatric issues, and multiple comorbidities may be poor candidates. Dementia and atypical parkinsonism are contraindications for DBS surgery; however, further studies are needed to see whether patients with mild dementia and severe motor complications could benefit from DBS surgery. Levodopa responsiveness should be assessed during on–off testing as it is an important predictor of good clinical outcomes. On the contrary, poor levodopa response or presence of axial features during "on period" may predict worse outcomes [21, 22]. Neuropsychological cognitive evaluation is typically performed to assess cognitive function and mood state, both of which could be used to determine patient candidacy and target choice.
Optimal age for DBS surgery is not well established, with some studies suggesting younger age is a predictor of favorable motor outcomes [22, 23], whereas other studies did not support these findings [24,25,26]. Although there is no defined age limit for DBS surgeries, many centers either are cautious with or exclude patients over the age of 70 years. A few studies examining clinical outcomes in patients over the age of 70 years have reported similar improvement in motor scores and dyskinesia [25, 27, 28]. However, quality of life did not improve significantly [25, 28]. Duration of PD symptoms by itself is inadequate to guide patient selection. With short duration of disease, there is a risk of implanting patients with atypical parkinsonism, whereas patients with disease duration of 15 to 20 years may have symptoms which respond poorly to DBS. After the results of the EARLYSTIM trial, the therapeutic window of DBS has been expanded to include patients with motor fluctuations with at least 4 years of disease duration [29].
For optimizing patient selection, a multidisciplinary team approach is recommended followed by a detailed multidisciplinary review to reach a final consensus plan about target selection, unilateral versus bilateral procedure, and type of DBS system.
Target Selection
The two targets most frequently used for DBS electrode implantation in PD are the globus pallidus interna (GPi) and the subthalamic nucleus (STN). Both targets have been evaluated in several studies and demonstrated comparable improvement in motor symptoms and quality of life [30,31,32,33,34]. Recently, a meta-analysis found similar efficacy of STN and GPi in long-term tremor suppression [35]. Both targets significantly reduce levodopa-induced dyskinesia; however, GPi stimulation can have a greater anti-dyskinetic effect [30, 32,33,34]. An anti-dyskinetic effect is related to direct stimulation of pallido-fugal fibers with GPi-DBS and medication reduction after STN-DBS (although stimulation dorsal to the STN can also activate pallidothalamic fibers) [36]. Across multiple studies, STN-DBS has consistently been associated with greater reduction in dopaminergic medications compared to GPi-DBS [30, 33, 34, 37]. Reduction in medication dose can reduce dyskinesia and other medication-induced side effects including drowsiness, compulsive behaviors, orthostatic hypotension, and hallucinations.
DBS effects on gait and axial symptoms assessed by Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) II and III subscores showed no difference between the two targets [33, 38]. However, GPi-DBS together with levodopa was reported to maintain improvement in gait and posture up to 5 years, whereas a decline after 2 years was noted with STN-DBS [39]. The reason for the differential effect on gait is not clear and could potentially be related to higher dopaminergic medications with GPi-DBS or a direct neuromodulatory effect of different targets on gait neural networks. These findings suggest that GPi-DBS may be a superior target for PD patients with postural instability and gait difficulty, although with both targets improvement in gait and posture declined in the long term [39].
There is limited literature on the effects of different targets on cognition and neuropsychiatric symptoms. The VA cooperative study assessed cognitive measures and found a significant worsening in the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale (MDRS) and Hopkins Verbal Learning Test with STN-DBS as compared to GPi-DBS at 36 months [32]. However, as the STN-DBS group had worse baseline cognitive measures, these results should be interpreted carefully [32]. In the COMPARE trial, the effect of unilateral GPi versus STN showed no difference on primary mood and cognitive outcomes, though its secondary outcome analysis showed worse cognitive issues after STN-DBS [31]. Recently, the NSTAPS study reported no significant difference in global cognitive function, psychiatric symptoms, and neuropsychological assessments between the two targets (STN vs GPi) at 3 years [40]. In a meta-analysis of several randomized clinical trials, STN-DBS was associated with a decline in phonemic fluency, attention, working memory, and processing speed; however, no difference in quality of life and psychiatric symptoms was seen between the two targets [41].
Other DBS targets are less often utilized or are under investigation presently. The ventral intermediate nucleus of the thalamus (ViM) is an established target for tremor control, but it is considered less frequently as it has a limited effect on other motor symptoms and does not improve motor complications. ViM-DBS is used in some patients with tremor-dominant PD [42, 43]. Several small studies that investigated the pedunculopontine nucleus (PPN) as a potential target for freezing of gait (FOG) and postural instability in PD have reported variable outcomes [44,45,46,47]. The posterior subthalamic area (PSA)/cZi (caudal zona incerta) has been reported to be an effective target for parkinsonian tremor [48,49,50]. The thalamic centromedian-parafascicular complex (CM/Pf) has also been suggested as a potential target because of its anatomical connections to different cortical and subcortical motor areas [51, 52].
Unilateral Versus Bilateral Surgery
Determination about unilateral or bilateral lead placement is done during preoperative evaluations. Most centers perform bilateral lead placement as a majority of patients have axial and bilateral symptoms. Lead implantation can be performed simultaneously during a single session or in a staged approach with placement of a lead for the most affected side first followed by the contralateral side after several weeks or months. The literature on staged compared to simultaneous approach for lead placement is limited. A staged procedure may potentially reduce the risk of DBS-associated complications and recovery time [53]. However, a retrospective analysis comparing staged and simultaneous approach found no significant difference between 90-day postoperative complications and annualized cost [54]. For older patients or those with predominant one-sided symptoms, unilateral DBS may be considered [55, 56]. Unilateral DBS in either STN or GPi has been shown to improve motor symptoms and quality of life [56, 57], with a greater benefit with GPi-DBS on quality of life [58].
Hardware Selection
The principal components of DBS hardware include intracranial electrode leads, an implantable pulse generator (IPG), and extension wires connecting intracranial leads to the IPG. With innovation in DBS technology, there has been an advancement in both electrode design and IPGs. DBS leads have evolved from vertically aligned conventional quadripolar (4-contact) ring-shaped electrodes to leads with octopolar (8-contact) and segmented electrodes (directional leads). The directional leads consist of 2 middle contacts with 3 radially segmented electrodes at 120° and 2 ring-shaped electrodes at the highest and lowest contacts (1-3-3-1) [59]. With stimulation of individual or a combination of segmented electrodes, the current can be steered in a particular direction–“directional stimulation.” Newer devices allow constant current stimulation and multiple independent current control (MICC) in which each electrode has a dedicated current source [60]. These advancements have enhanced programming capabilities by enabling complex field shaping to avoid stimulation-induced adverse effects and optimize clinical benefits [61,62,63] but have also increased the amount of time clinicians require for programming [64].
Presently, 3 FDA-approved DBS systems are commercially available in the USA (Table 1). All DBS devices have similar efficacy, and selection of the DBS system is based on individual patient factors and experience of the DBS center with different devices. Although current steering and MICC capabilities offer an advantage over conventional DBS systems to reduce stimulation-induced adverse effects, its long-term utility in clinics is yet to be determined. Other factors such as MRI compatibility and patient preference for rechargeable IPGs could be considered in the selection process.
Surgical Procedure
Different surgical techniques are utilized to implant DBS leads. The choice of technique differs across centers and is determined by the surgical team based on their training and experience [65]. During the surgical procedure, the DBS target is defined either by predefined stereotactic atlas-based coordinates (indirect targeting) or by direct visualization on imaging (direct targeting). Various stereotactic frames are commercially available to assist in accurate lead placement in the selected target [65]. Frameless stereotaxy which was introduced recently has similar lead placement accuracy and obviates patient discomfort caused by the stereotactic frame [65]. Traditionally, most centers perform awake surgeries with intraoperative physiological mapping, including microelectrode recording (MER) and/or macrostimulation to refine the anatomical target, during which patients participate in neurological assessments [66]. Recently, with improvement in imaging, some centers perform lead placement with direct targeting during asleep procedures using intraoperative imaging such as intraoperative O-arm, intraoperative CT (iCT), or intraoperative MRI (iMRI) to confirm lead placement [67,68,69]. These surgeries can be performed under general anesthesia without intraoperative physiological mapping and/or test stimulation.
Preference regarding MER-guided awake versus asleep procedure without MER guidance for lead placement is a matter of ongoing debate [70]. Neurophysiological mapping such as MER and/or macrostimulation during an awake procedure can assist in verifying the selected target and optimizing lead placement [66]. In one study, 20% of the initial trajectories for the DBS target based on imaging alone were identified to be suboptimal and were revised subsequently using MER guidance [71]. Results of intraoperative test stimulation can aid in determining optimal stimulation parameters during programming [72]. However, MER has been associated with an increased risk of hemorrhage [73] and can increase the duration and cost of surgery [70]. Also, awake surgeries can be inconvenient for patients with severe procedure-related anxiety and major discomfort in the off-medication state. Both MER-guided awake procedure and imaging-guided asleep procedure (iMRI or iCT) have shown comparable clinical outcomes and lead accuracy [74, 75]. A meta-analysis comparing awake and different asleep procedures showed no significant difference in clinical outcomes, lead accuracy, and surgery duration. The study found an increased risk of complications including infection and hemorrhage with the awake procedure and an increased risk of stimulation-induced side effects with the asleep procedure [76]. However, only 16/145 studies utilized asleep procedures, and imaging protocols varied widely [76].
There is no clear consensus on the best technique for lead placement. The surgical technique should be chosen based on the surgeon’s experience and comfort level, and by considering patient-related factors. For example, at centers with availability of different techniques, asleep surgeries could be considered in patients who do not prefer or tolerate the awake procedure, whereas preference for an MER-guided awake procedure can be potentially given for patients who could not tolerate general anesthesia. Further studies across multiple centers assessing different techniques and patient-related factors may help in guiding DBS teams in selecting the most appropriate procedure.
DBS Programming and Medication Management
After successful placement of the DBS system, the efficacy is dependent on programming along with careful medication adjustment. DBS programming is performed by trained clinicians (neurologists, nurses, physician assistants, etc.) who understand DBS systems, target anatomy, stimulation-induced side effects, and medication adjustment. Initial programming is typically performed 2 to 4 weeks after lead placement, allowing time for resolution of microlesion benefit. Input from intraoperative test stimulation and/or postoperative imaging with DBS leads overlaid on deformable atlases can assist in DBS programming and increase efficiency [72, 77].
Initial monopolar review is performed by systematically screening each individual electrode for potential benefits and side effects to determine the therapeutic window (amplitude threshold for side effects minus benefit threshold). This is performed in monopolar mode by assigning one of the electrodes with negative polarity (cathode) and the neurostimulator with positive polarity (anode). Amplitude is slowly increased while keeping other parameters (frequency, pulse width) constant to determine the therapeutic window for each electrode. In case of stimulation-induced side effects, available strategies include adjusting different stimulation parameters (amplitude, pulse width, frequency), switching to a different electrode, or bipolar mode. Advanced programming such as interleaving, current steering, and adjusting the proportion of the current on different electrodes with MICC stimulation can be explored to optimize outcomes. Stimulation is adjusted during follow-up visits based on clinical response and progression of symptoms.
Dopaminergic medication can be potentially reduced after DBS surgery. The reduction in dopaminergic medications is greater with STN-DBS as compared to GPi-DBS [30, 33, 34, 37]. Medication reduction is performed gradually, and patients are monitored for worsening of any non-motor issues (e.g., depression, sleep difficulty, restless legs, etc.). Although, in patients experiencing severe STN-DBS-induced dyskinesia, relative rapid reduction of medications can be performed carefully.
Clinical Outcomes
Multiple studies have consistently demonstrated the efficacy of DBS in PD [26, 78,79,80,81] using UPDRS scores, motor diaries, PD quality of life questionnaire (PDQ-39), and various neuropsychiatric scales. As summarized in Table 2, evidence from multiple randomized clinical trials with both STN-DBS and GPi-DBS has shown improvement in motor scores, increased “on time” without troublesome dyskinesia, and quality of life (QOL). Deuschl and colleagues [78] conducted the first multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial and reported significant improvement in off medication UPDRS part III motor scores (41%) with STN-DBS as compared to best medical therapy (BMT). Also, there was significant improvement in QOL (24%) in patients with STN-DBS as compared to no change in patients who were on BMT [78]. In the VA Cooperative Study, at 6-month follow-up, STN-DBS showed an increase in “on time” without troublesome dyskinesia by 4.6 h and QOL improved significantly (17%) as compared to no change with BMT [26]. PD SURG trial found greater improvement in QOL with medical therapy combined with DBS as compared to medical therapy alone (13.3% vs 1.5%) [82]. Although, in most of the early studies, STN was the preferred DBS target, subsequent studies showed similar improvement with GPi-DBS [33, 37]. The effect of DBS therapy on motor outcomes can be sustained over 10 years; however, the improvement in quality of life wanes over that time [83, 84].
Complications
In appropriately selected patients, DBS surgery is well tolerated and relatively safe; however, complications associated with surgical procedure and implanted hardware may occur. Complications include intracranial hemorrhage (1-5%), stroke (0-2%), infection (2-5%), seizure (0.3-5%), perilead edema (3-4%), postoperative confusion (5-26.5%), and rarely death [85,86,87,88,89,90]. Novel complications such as delayed intracerebral cystic lesions have also been described [91]. Recently, loss of swimming skills after STN-DBS was reported in 9 patients [92]. Of the hardware-related complications, infection and pain at the neurostimulator site are most common. Other hardware-related complications include lead fracture, erosion, lead migration, and lead misplacement [85,86,87,88, 90]. Lead misplacement occurs in 1.7 to 2.2% of leads [85,86,87] and is one of the common reasons for poor outcomes [20]. In a study analyzing two large national databases, the rate of revision and removal was reported in 15.2 to 34% of implanted leads and 48.5% of revisions were due to improper target and lack of therapeutic effect [93].
Stimulation-related side effects vary based on the DBS target because of the spread of the electrical current into the surrounding regions/tracts. These can be divided into sensory or motor and neuropsychiatric side effects. As mentioned in previous sections, STN-DBS is associated with impairment in verbal fluency and other select neurocognitive measures [39, 41]. It is advised to monitor neuropsychiatric symptoms such as depression, anxiety, and behavioral changes carefully during adjustment of DBS parameters and dopaminergic medications. Suicide rates with STN-DBS have been reported to be < 0.5% [94], although results from randomized controlled trials did not support a direct association between suicide risk and DBS surgeries [95].
Mechanisms of Action
Contemporary clinical DBS developed out of a largely serendipitous observation that high-frequency (> 100 Hz) stimulation alleviates tremor [6]. The last three decades of research have led to increased understanding of DBS mechanisms locally in the immediate vicinity of the stimulating electrode and network-wide [96]. Clinical effects of DBS and lesioning are similar, which led to the initial hypothesis that DBS inhibited local neurons [97, 98]. However, activity is increased in the downstream nuclei during stimulation [99]. The apparent paradox of simultaneous cell body inhibition and axonal activation was explained in part by computational modeling studies demonstrating that under extracellular electrical stimulation, the action potential initiates in the axon [100]. Although basal ganglia activity is pathologically increased in PD, it was proposed that by regularizing basal ganglia output by DBS, an “informational lesion” is created allowing normalized sensorimotor processing through the motor network [101].
Additionally, PD has been characterized by exaggerated oscillatory neural activity in the beta (13-30 Hz) band within and between the motor network nuclei. Both levodopa and DBS reduce this excessive synchronized activity leading to improved motor function [102, 103]. It is still unclear how an increase in local neural activity surrounding the DBS electrode leads to this beneficial desynchronization. Furthermore, different PD symptoms respond to DBS at different time courses. This suggests that not only does stimulation serve as an on–off switch for modulating circuit oscillations, but that it may also induce synaptic reorganization and alter gene expression [104].
Future Directions
Currently available clinical DBS devices deliver a continuous train of electrical pulses at preset amplitude, pulse width, and frequency. However, the severity of PD symptoms varies over the course of the day because of physiologic fluctuations and medication intake. As a result, there has been a great interest in developing adaptive (closed-loop) DBS devices that can automatically change stimulation settings based on the patient’s clinical status. This requires an objective marker of disease or symptom severity that can be continuously monitored. Pilot studies have been performed using beta band oscillations as a marker of akinesia rigidity [105], gamma band oscillations as a marker of dyskinesia [106], and externally recorded accelerometer signal as a marker of tremor severity [107]. Technical challenges and incomplete understanding of potential biomarkers have hampered adoption into clinical practice.
The ideal PD therapy would slow down or even reverse disease progression. Animal studies have suggested that electrical stimulation may have such effect [108, 109]. This led to a pilot study in patients with very early PD in hopes that DBS would provide disease-modifying benefit rather than just symptomatic treatment as it is used today. This study was primarily focused on safety and feasibility, but it showed potential slowing of rest tremor progression in patients with STN-DBS compared to medication therapy alone in a post hoc analysis. However, there was no significant difference in UPDRS motor scores and quality of life between the 2 groups. Also, the study has limitations including small sample size and open-label design; therefore, currently, there is insufficient evidence to support neuroprotective effect, and a larger clinical trial is planned [110].
Lesioning Procedures
Lesioning or ablative surgeries (LS) involve selective destruction of a targeted brain tissue volume in order to interrupt maladaptive neural networks. Although LS have been performed for several decades in selected patients with PD, their use decreased in the 1960s after the introduction of levodopa and then again in the 1990s because of DBS. The field of LS has since grown, and currently available techniques include radiofrequency (RF) thermoablation, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), MRI-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) thermal ablation (or MR-guided focused ultrasound, MRgFUS), and laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT), with the former three being used commonly in movement disorders (Fig. 1) [111]. SRS and HIFU are considered less invasive than radiofrequency lesioning because they do not require a burr hole or an intracranial probe.
Patient Selection
Despite the fact that most clinicians favor DBS over LS wherever the former is widely available, LS is still utilized in less developed countries because of lack of appropriate infrastructure and training, financial constraints, limited research, awareness and referrals to tertiary centers, and follow-up care for DBS [112].With advancement in imaging and localization approaches, LS remains an alternative therapeutic option for PD management. LS can be considered in patients who choose not to or cannot safely undergo DBS surgery and/or have difficulties with regular follow-up programming visits [113]. Criteria for LS candidacy are similar to those of DBS, and a multidisciplinary evaluation by a movement disorders neurologist, a neuropsychologist, and a neurosurgeon to determine the appropriateness of the therapy and target selection is recommended. Compared to DBS, successful LS is relatively cheaper and reduces postoperative care and hardware-related complications [114]; however, LS is not reversible and postprocedure optimization is not possible without revision surgery. A major limitation of LS is increased side effects with bilateral lesions, including aphasia, dysarthria, dysphagia, and cognitive deficits about 30 to 60% for bilateral thalamotomies and hypophonia, neuropsychological, and cognitive deficits about 17% for bilateral pallidotomies [115,116,117,118,119,120,121]. Unilateral lesioning can be followed by contralateral DBS in patients who are appropriate candidates [122, 123].
Target Selection
Studies involving RF ablation, SRS, and HIFU have proven benefit with thalamotomy for tremor-dominant PD and pallidotomy for medication-resistant motor fluctuations. Due to concern of intractable hemiballismus with subthalamotomies, STN has been less studied for LS in PD, although recent studies have demonstrated significant improvement in motor symptoms with minimal development of hemiballismus [124,125,126,127]. Generally, thalamotomy is considered for tremor-predominant PD or ET, although in patients with PD, a pallidotomy might be a better choice as it can additionally improve bradykinesia and rigidity. As the data for LS utilizing STN as the target is limited, presently it is considered infrequently.
Radiofrequency Lesioning
Similar to DBS, this surgical method includes neuroimaging, a stereotactic headframe, and introduction of an electrode intracranially coupled to an RF generator. Patients are awake during the procedure and a test stimulation is done to confirm the target. A thermally induced lesion is then achieved at the tip of the active electrode with alternating current. The electrode is retracted after lesioning is complete. RF lesioning allows distinct lesion borders with immediate results, thus allowing intraoperative confirmation of symptom improvement. ViM thalamotomy for tremor-predominant PD has shown immediate tremor improvement ranging from 60 to 100% using RF ablation [128, 129], including long-term benefit of 57 to 90% for 2 to 15 years [129,130,131]. Most side effects for thalamotomy, including ataxia, dysarthria, and sensory/motor deficits, are related to perilesional edema which subsides over time, usually over 1 week to 1 month, but are variable depending on the lesion size [132]. Studies involving unilateral pallidotomies with RF for PD have shown an average reduction of 30% in UPDRS III motor scores with improvement for tremor, bradykinesia, rigidity, gait, and balance [117, 133,134,135]. There is also improvement in dyskinesia up to 90% [136, 137]. Adverse effects of pallidotomy include visual field deficits, paresis, and neuropsychological deficits, and they are mostly transient due to perilesional edema of variable duration [116, 138,139,140]. The surgical risk associated with RF technique also includes hemorrhage and infection [141].
Stereotactic Radiosurgery Lesioning
SRS lesioning involves a single large dose of ionizing radiation delivered noninvasively to a limited intracranial target volume using computerized dosimetry planning and image-guided stereotaxy. Different devices are used to deliver radiation, including GammaKnife ® and linear accelerators. Drawbacks associated with SRS include lack of intraoperative feedback, variable lesion size, poorly defined lesion borders, exposure to ionizing radiation, and delayed effect [111]. The median onset of benefit is around 2 months and benefits are sustained long term (median 30 months) [142, 143]. A study has reported complete or near complete improvements in tremor in about 88% patients with PD with SRS thalamotomy [143]. SRS has also been shown to have a similar efficacy and safety profile to RF lesioning and DBS therapies for pallidal lesions [143, 144].
Focused Ultrasound Thermal Ablation
FUS utilizes high-intensity focused ultrasound beams targeted to an intracranial region to perform thermal ablation. With the use of MRI-guidance and MR-thermography, accurate targeting and real-time monitoring of the lesion are possible, and this approach, called MR-guided FUS (MRgFUS), has re-ignited interest in lesioning procedures for movement disorders [111]. An array of transducers in a helmet is used to pass ultrasonic waves through the skull into a target in the brain. Advantages of this technique include lack of ionizing radiation, immediate results, ability to produce well-circumscribed lesions, and real-time MRI monitoring. Limitations include MRI environment–related claustrophobia in patients and longer operative times [111, 145]. Another limitation of MgFUS is that the ability to produce effective lesions depends on skull thickness/density. Currently, MRgFUS is FDA approved for unilateral thalamotomies in ET and tremor-predominant PD. Its use in pallidotomies and subthalamotomies is under investigation. In several studies, MRgFUS thalamotomies for tremor-predominant PD have shown improvement from 30 to 60% in UPDRS III motor score [146,147,148]. Similar results have been reported with MRgFUS pallidotomies [149, 150]. In a recent unblinded open-label study with MRgFUS subthalamotomy, 9 patients who underwent modified protocol MRgFUS showed an improvement of 60.9% in UPDRS III motor scores at 3 months [151]. Another study targeting the STN with MRgFUS in 10 patients reported 53% improvement in UPDRS III motor scores at 6 months without significant side effects [127]. In this study, there were a total of 38 adverse events over a 6-month follow-up period. Of these, there were three events which were related to the STN lesioning directly: off-medication choreic dyskinesia, on-medication nondisabling dyskinesia, and subjective speech disturbance. The two patients with dyskinesia had near resolution of symptoms at 6 months after the medications were adjusted [127].
How to Choose Among Surgical Therapies in PD
Different surgical treatment options can be considered in selected PD patients to improve motor symptoms that are poorly controlled with oral medications. Both DBS or lesioning surgeries have shown to reduce "off time" and dyskinesia, treat medication-resistant tremor, and improve quality of life. Deciding on a specific therapy requires a multidisciplinary team and is tailored towards the individual patient, based on their symptoms, expectations, risk–benefit ratio, and local expertise.
In healthcare systems where DBS is readily available, it is generally preferred over lesioning procedures because stimulation effects are adjustable and DBS can be safely performed bilaterally. Lesioning procedures may be appropriate for patients who may not tolerate DBS hardware (e.g., history of head and neck cancer or repeated DBS hardware infections), have surgical contraindication (e.g., a blood vessel in the trajectory of the targeted area), are unable to attend frequent clinic visits for programming, or are unwilling to deal with hardware maintenance and potential complications. A well-placed lesion can provide excellent motor benefit, but it is less forgiving if suboptimal. Bilateral lesions should not be performed because of a high risk of complications, especially for pallidal and thalamic targets. The exact type of lesioning procedure offered will usually depend on local expertise. Many centers performing awake, MER-guided DBS implantations will offer RF ablations. MRgFUS is increasingly attractive to patients because it does not require an incision, although access is still limited because of high equipment costs. Radiotherapy is typically less favored given the less predictable lesion size and delayed onset of benefit, but it may be a good option for patients who are unable to undergo DBS or other lesioning procedures.
Utilizing DBS in a patient who had a prior lesioning procedure can provide additional therapeutic benefit, and it may be considered in select cases. This assumes that the patient is able to undergo DBS procedure even though lesioning was preferred as the initial treatment. For example, a patient may have initially chosen to undergo lesioning to avoid frequent clinic visits for programming and hardware maintenance, but eventually developed troublesome contralateral symptoms, or had unilateral surgical contraindication for DBS. Utilizing DBS is expected to reduce the chance of adverse events such as speech and cognitive difficulties observed after bilateral lesioning surgeries. Additionally, DBS can be considered as a rescue therapy for patients who had previously undergone lesioning and had suboptimal benefit, recurrence of symptoms, or certain side effects. For example, a lesion-induced dyskinesia from a subthalamotomy could be improved by pallidal DBS. Conversely, if there have been repeated infections with DBS hardware, a patient may benefit from lesioning procedure (even utilizing the existing DBS lead to create a lesion).
Patients with significant cognitive impairment, those with unstable psychiatric symptoms (including hallucinations), or those with significant medical comorbidities are not good surgical candidates for DBS or lesioning procedures. Some patients may opt against neurosurgical procedures based on personal beliefs and risk tolerance. For those patients, other advanced therapies including levodopa–carbidopa intestinal gel infusion (LCIG) or continuous subcutaneous apomorphine infusion (CSAi) options should be considered. An in-depth discussion of infusion devices is beyond the scope of this review article, but a brief comparison of surgical procedures with other advanced therapies is presented in Table 3.
Specific motor symptoms may respond to a different degree following DBS or lesioning procedure. Tremor, dyskinesias, and rigidity respond very well, followed by bradykinesia, then gait and other axial symptoms. Gait difficulty and freezing of gait will typically respond if they are levodopa responsive, but many patients either have or eventually develop nonresponsive features, whereas balance typically does not improve. Given the unsatisfactory response of gait and balance to current treatments, more research is needed for experimental therapies such as motor cortex and spinal cord stimulation. Finally, as none of the therapies have clearly shown to be neuroprotective, further research is needed to understand their role in altering the disease course and the development of disease-modifying therapies.
In conclusion, there is a wide range of surgical therapy options for management of PD. Applying these techniques requires a skilled multidisciplinary team to help a patient choose the appropriate therapy, perform the intervention, and offer a long-term comprehensive follow-up.
References
Spiegel EA, Wycis HT, Marks M, Lee AJ. Stereotaxic apparatus for operations on the human brain. Science 1947;106(2754):349-350.
Spiegel EA, Wycis HT. Stereoencephalotomy: Methods and stereotaxic atlas of the human brain: Grune & Stratton; 1952.
Hassler R. Indikationen und Lokalizationsmethode der gezielten Hirnoperationen. Nervenarzt 1954;25:441-447.
Cooper IS. Ligation of the anterior choroidal artery for involuntary movements-parkinsonism. Psychiatr Q 1953;27(1-4):317-319.
Narabayashi H, Okuma T. Procaine-oil blocking of the globus pallidus for the treatment of rigidity and tremor of parkinsonism (preliminary report). Proc Jpn Acad 1953;29(3):134-137.
Gildenberg PL. Evolution of neuromodulation. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 2005;83(2-3):71-79.
Albe Fessard D, Arfel G, Guiot G, Derome P, Dela H, Korn H, et al. [CHARACTERISTIC ELECTRIC ACTIVITIES OF SOME CEREBRAL STRUCTURES IN MAN]. Ann Chir. 1963;17:1185-214.
Cotzias GC, Van Woert MH, Schiffer LM. Aromatic amino acids and modification of parkinsonism. N Engl J Med 1967;276(7):374-379.
Narabayashi H, Yokochi F, Nakajima Y. Levodopa-induced dyskinesia and thalamotomy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1984;47(8):831-839.
Laitinen LV, Bergenheim AT, Hariz MI. Leksell's posteroventral pallidotomy in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. J Neurosurg 1992;76(1):53-61.
DeLong MR, Crutcher MD, Georgopoulos AP. Primate globus pallidus and subthalamic nucleus: functional organization. J Neurophysiol 1985;53(2):530-543.
Albin RL, Young AB, Penney JB. The functional anatomy of basal ganglia disorders. Trends Neurosci 1989;12(10):366-375.
Benabid AL, Pollak P, Louveau A, Henry S, de Rougemont J. Combined (thalamotomy and stimulation) stereotactic surgery of the VIM thalamic nucleus for bilateral Parkinson disease. Appl Neurophysiol 1987;50(1-6):344-346.
Benabid AL, Pollak P, Gao D, et al. Chronic electrical stimulation of the ventralis intermedius nucleus of the thalamus as a treatment of movement disorders. J Neurosurg 1996;84(2):203-214.
Koller W, Pahwa R, Busenbark K, et al. High-frequency unilateral thalamic stimulation in the treatment of essential and parkinsonian tremor. Ann Neurol 1997;42(3):292-299.
Laitinen LV, Bergenheim AT, Hariz MI. Leksell's posteroventral pallidotomy in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. J Neurosurg 1992;76(1):53-61.
Bergman H, Wichmann T, DeLong MR. Reversal of experimental parkinsonism by lesions of the subthalamic nucleus. Science 1990;249(4975):1436-1438.
Siegfried J, Lippitz B. Bilateral chronic electrostimulation of ventroposterolateral pallidum: a new therapeutic approach for alleviating all parkinsonian symptoms. Neurosurgery 1994;35(6):1126-1129; discussion 9-30.
Limousin P, Pollak P, Benazzouz A, et al. Effect of parkinsonian signs and symptoms of bilateral subthalamic nucleus stimulation. Lancet 1995;345(8942):91-95.
Okun MS, Tagliati M, Pourfar M, et al. Management of referred deep brain stimulation failures: a retrospective analysis from 2 movement disorders centers. Arch Neurol 2005;62(8):1250-5.
Lang AE, Widner H. Deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease: patient selection and evaluation. Mov Disord 2002;17(S3):S94-S101.
Welter M, Houeto J, Tezenas du Montcel S et al. Clinical predictive factors of subthalamic stimulation in Parkinson’s disease. Brain 2002;125(3):575-583.
Charles PD, Van Blercom N, Krack P, et al. Predictors of effective bilateral subthalamic nucleus stimulation for PD. Neurology 2002;59(6):932-934.
Derost PP, Ouchchane L, Morand D, et al. Is DBS-STN appropriate to treat severe Parkinson disease in an elderly population? Neurology 2007;68(17):1345-1355.
Russmann H, Ghika J, Villemure JG, et al. Subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation in Parkinson disease patients over age 70 years. Neurology 2004;63(10):1952-1954.
Weaver FM, Follett K, Stern M, et al. Bilateral deep brain stimulation vs best medical therapy for patients with advanced Parkinson disease: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2009;301(1):63-73.
Mathkour M, Garces J, Scullen T, et al. Short- and long-term outcomes of deep brain stimulation in patients 70 years and older with Parkinson disease. World Neurosurg 2017;97:247-252.
Sharma VD, Lyons KE, Nazzaro JM, Pahwa R. Deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus in Parkinson's disease patients over 75years of age. J Neurol Sci 2019;399:57-60.
Schuepbach WM, Rau J, Knudsen K, et al. Neurostimulation for Parkinson’s disease with early motor complications. N Engl J Med 2013;368(7):610-622.
Anderson VC, Burchiel KJ, Hogarth P, Favre J, Hammerstad JP. Pallidal vs subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation in Parkinson disease. Arch Neurol 2005;62(4):554-60.
Okun MS, Fernandez HH, Wu SS, et al. Cognition and mood in Parkinson’s disease in subthalamic nucleus versus globus pallidus interna deep brain stimulation: the COMPARE trial Ann Neurol 2009;65(5):586-595.
Weaver FM, Follett KA, Stern M, et al. Randomized trial of deep brain stimulation for Parkinson disease: thirty-six-month outcomes. Neurology 2012;79(1):55-65.
Odekerken VJ, Boel JA, Schmand BA, et al. GPi vs STN deep brain stimulation for Parkinson disease: three-year follow-up. Neurology 2016;86(8):755-761.
Mansouri A, Taslimi S, Badhiwala JH, et al. Deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease: meta-analysis of results of randomized trials at varying lengths of follow-up. J Neurosurg 2018;128(4):1199-1213.
Wong JK, Cauraugh JH, Ho KWD, et al. STN vs. GPi deep brain stimulation for tremor suppression in Parkinson disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2019;58:56-62.
Follett KA. Comparison of pallidal and subthalamic deep brain stimulation for the treatment of levodopa-induced dyskinesias. Neurosurg Focus 2004;17(1):E3.
Follett KA, Weaver FM, Stern M, et al. Pallidal versus subthalamic deep-brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease. N Engl J Med 2010;362(22):2077-2091.
Mei S, Eisinger RS, Hu W, Tsuboi T, Foote KD, Hass CJ, et al. Three-Year Gait and Axial Outcomes of Bilateral STN and GPi Parkinson's Disease Deep Brain Stimulation. Front Hum Neurosci. 2020;14:1.
George RS, Nutt J, Burchiel K, Horak F. A meta-regression of the long-term effects of deep brain stimulation on balance and gait in PD. Neurology 2010;75(14):1292-1299.
Boel JA, Odekerken VJ, Schmand BA, et al. Cognitive and psychiatric outcome 3 years after globus pallidus pars interna or subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2016;33:90-95.
Wang JW, Zhang YQ, Zhang XH, et al. Psychiatric effects of STN versus GPi deep brain stimulation in Parkinson's disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One 2016;11(6):e0156721.
Lyons K, Koller W, Wilkinson S, Pahwa R. Long term safety and efficacy of unilateral deep brain stimulation of the thalamus for parkinsonian tremor. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2001;71(5):682-684.
Cury RG, Fraix V, Castrioto A, et al. Thalamic deep brain stimulation for tremor in Parkinson disease, essential tremor, and dystonia. Neurology 2017;89(13):1416-1423.
Plaha P, Gill SS. Bilateral deep brain stimulation of the pedunculopontine nucleus for Parkinson’s disease. Neuroreport 2005;16(17):1883-1887.
Ferraye M, Debû B, Fraix V, et al. Effects of pedunculopontine nucleus area stimulation on gait disorders in Parkinson’s disease. Brain 2010;133(1):205-214.
Mestre TA, Sidiropoulos C, Hamani C, et al. Long-term double-blinded unilateral pedunculopontine area stimulation in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 2016;31(10):1570-4.
Welter M-L, Demain A, Ewenczyk C, et al. PPNa-DBS for gait and balance disorders in Parkinson’s disease: a double-blind, randomised study. J Neurol 2015;262(6):1515-1525.
Plaha P, Ben-Shlomo Y, Patel NK, Gill SS. Stimulation of the caudal zona incerta is superior to stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus in improving contralateral parkinsonism. Brain 2006;129(Pt 7):1732-1747.
Kitagawa M, Murata J-i, Uesugi H, et al. Two-year follow-up of chronic stimulation of the posterior subthalamic white matter for tremor-dominant Parkinson’s disease. Neurosurgery 2005;56(2):281-289.
Blomstedt P, Persson RS, Hariz G-M, et al. Deep brain stimulation in the caudal zona incerta versus best medical treatment in patients with Parkinson’s disease: a randomised blinded evaluation. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2018;89(7):710-716.
Peppe A, Gasbarra A, Stefani A, et al. Deep brain stimulation of CM/PF of thalamus could be the new elective target for tremor in advanced Parkinson’s disease? Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2008;14(6):501-504.
Sharma VD, Mewes K, Wichmann T, Buetefisch C, Willie JT, DeLong M. Deep brain stimulation of the centromedian thalamic nucleus for essential tremor: a case report. Acta Neurochir 2017;159(5):789-793.
Alberts JL, Hass CJ, Vitek JL, Okun MS. Are two leads always better than one: an emerging case for unilateral subthalamic deep brain stimulation in Parkinson's disease. Exp Neurol 2008;214(1):1-5.
Petraglia FW, 3rd, Farber SH, Han JL, et al. Comparison of bilateral vs. staged unilateral deep brain stimulation (DBS) in Parkinson’s disease in patients under 70 years of age. Neuromodulation 2016;19(1):31-37.
Walker HC, Watts RL, Guthrie S, Wang D, Guthrie BL. Bilateral effects of unilateral subthalamic deep brain stimulation on Parkinson’s disease at 1 year. Neurosurgery 2009;65(2):302-310.
Slowinski JL, Putzke JD, Uitti RJ, et al. Unilateral deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus for Parkinson disease. J Neurosurg 2007;106(4):626-632.
Taba HA, Wu SS, Foote KD, et al. A closer look at unilateral versus bilateral deep brain stimulation: results of the National Institutes of Health COMPARE cohort. J Neurosurg 2010;113(6):1224-1229.
Zahodne LB, Okun MS, Foote KD, et al. Greater improvement in quality of life following unilateral deep brain stimulation surgery in the globus pallidus as compared to the subthalamic nucleus. J Neurol 2009;256(8):1321-1329.
Steigerwald F, Matthies C, Volkmann J. Directional deep brain stimulation. Neurotherapeutics 2019;16(1):100-104.
Timmermann L, Jain R, Chen L, et al. Multiple-source current steering in subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease (the VANTAGE study): a non-randomised, prospective, multicentre, open-label study. Lancet Neurol 2015;14(7):693-701.
Dembek TA, Reker P, Visser-Vandewalle V, et al. Directional DBS increases side-effect thresholds-a prospective, double-blind trial. Mov Disord 2017;32(10):1380-1388.
Rebelo P, Green AL, Aziz TZ, et al. Thalamic directional deep brain stimulation for tremor: spend less, get more. Brain Stimul 2018;11(3):600-606.
Barbe MT, Maarouf M, Alesch F, Timmermann L. Multiple source current steering–a novel deep brain stimulation concept for customized programming in a Parkinson's disease patient. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2014;20(4):471-473.
Ten Brinke TR, Odekerken VJJ, Dijk JM, van den Munckhof P, Schuurman PR, de Bie RMA. Directional deep brain stimulation: first experiences in centers across the globe. Brain Stimul 2018;11(4):949-950.
Machado A, Rezai AR, Kopell BH, Gross RE, Sharan AD, Benabid AL. Deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease: surgical technique and perioperative management. Mov Disord 2006;21 Suppl 14:S247-S258.
Gross RE, Krack P, Rodriguez-Oroz MC, Rezai AR, Benabid AL. Electrophysiological mapping for the implantation of deep brain stimulators for Parkinson's disease and tremor. Mov Disord 2006;21 Suppl 14:S259-S283.
Holloway K, Docef A. A quantitative assessment of the accuracy and reliability of O-arm images for deep brain stimulation surgery. Neurosurgery 2013;72(1 Suppl Operative):47-57.
Burchiel KJ, McCartney S, Lee A, Raslan AM. Accuracy of deep brain stimulation electrode placement using intraoperative computed tomography without microelectrode recording. J Neurosurg 2013;119(2):301-306.
Ostrem JL, Ziman N, Galifianakis NB, et al. Clinical outcomes using ClearPoint interventional MRI for deep brain stimulation lead placement in Parkinson’s disease. J Neurosurg 2016;124(4):908-916.
Aziz TZ, Hariz M. To sleep or not to sleep during deep brain stimulation surgery for Parkinson disease? Neurology 2017;89(19):1938-1939.
Lozano CS, Ranjan M, Boutet A, Xu DS, Kucharczyk W, Fasano A, Lozano AM. Imaging alone versus microelectrode recording-guided targeting of the STN in patients with Parkinson's disease. J Neurosurg. 2018 Jul 1:1-6. https://doi.org/10.3171/2018.2.JNS172186 Epub ahead of print. PMID: 30074454.
Geraedts VJ, van Ham RAP, Marinus J, et al. Intraoperative test stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus aids postoperative programming of chronic stimulation settings in Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2019;65:62-66.
Zrinzo L, Foltynie T, Limousin P, Hariz MI. Reducing hemorrhagic complications in functional neurosurgery: a large case series and systematic literature review. J Neurosurg 2012;116(1):84-94.
Brodsky MA, Anderson S, Murchison C, et al. Clinical outcomes of asleep vs awake deep brain stimulation for Parkinson disease. Neurology 2017;89(19):1944-1950.
Bezchlibnyk YB, Sharma VD, Naik KB, Isbaine F, Gale JT, Cheng J, Triche SD, Miocinovic S, Buetefisch CM, Willie JT, Boulis NM, Factor SA, Wichmann T, DeLong MR, Gross RE. Clinical outcomes of globus pallidus deep brain stimulation for Parkinson disease: a comparison of intraoperative MRI- and MER-guided lead placement. J Neurosurg. 2020 Mar 6:1-11. https://doi.org/10.3171/2019.12.JNS192010. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 32114534.
Ho AL, Ali R, Connolly ID, et al. Awake versus asleep deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease: a critical comparison and meta-analysis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2018;89(7):687-691.
Hell F, Palleis C, Mehrkens JH, Koeglsperger T, Bötzel K. Deep Brain Stimulation Programming 2.0: future perspectives for target identification and adaptive closed loop stimulation. Front Neurol 2019;10:314.
Deuschl G, Schade-Brittinger C, Krack P, et al. A randomized trial of deep-brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease. N Engl J Med 2006;355(9):896-908.
Schüpbach W, Maltete D, Houeto J, et al. Neurosurgery at an earlier stage of Parkinson disease: a randomized, controlled trial. Neurology 2007;68(4):267-271.
Witt K, Daniels C, Reiff J, et al. Neuropsychological and psychiatric changes after deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease: a randomised, multicentre study. Lancet Neurol 2008;7(7):605-614.
Okun MS, Gallo BV, Mandybur G, et al. Subthalamic deep brain stimulation with a constant-current device in Parkinson’s disease: an open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet Neurol 2012;11(2):140-149.
Williams A, Gill S, Varma T, et al. Deep brain stimulation plus best medical therapy versus best medical therapy alone for advanced Parkinson's disease (PD SURG trial): a randomised, open-label trial. Lancet Neurol 2010;9(6):581-591.
Hitti FL, Ramayya AG, McShane BJ, Yang AI, Vaughan KA, Baltuch GH. Long-term outcomes following deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease. J Neurosurg. 2019 Jan 18:1-6. https://doi.org/10.3171/2018.8.JNS182081. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 30660117.
Castrioto A, Lozano AM, Poon YY, Lang AE, Fallis M, Moro E. Ten-year outcome of subthalamic stimulation in Parkinson disease: a blinded evaluation. Arch Neurol 2011;68(12):1550-1556.
Seijo FJ, Alvarez-Vega MA, Gutierrez JC, Fdez-Glez F, Lozano B. Complications in subthalamic nucleus stimulation surgery for treatment of Parkinson's disease. Review of 272 procedures. Acta Neurochir. 2007;149(9):867-875; discussion 76.
Videnovic A, Metman LV. Deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease: prevalence of adverse events and need for standardized reporting. Mov Disord 2008;23(3):343-349.
Fenoy AJ, Simpson RK, Jr. Risks of common complications in deep brain stimulation surgery: management and avoidance. J Neurosurg 2014;120(1):132-139.
Goodman RR, Kim B, McClelland S, 3rd, et al. Operative techniques and morbidity with subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation in 100 consecutive patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2006;77(1):12-17.
Sharma VD, Lyons KE, Nazzaro JM, Pahwa R. Does post-operative symptomatic lead edema associated with subthalamic DBS implantation impact long-term clinical outcomes? J Neurol Sci 2020;410:116647.
Paim Strapasson AC, Martins Antunes AC, Petry Oppitz P, Dalsin M, de Mello Rieder CR. Postoperative confusion in patients with Parkinson disease undergoing deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus. World Neurosurg 2019;125:e966-e971.
Sharma VD, Bona AR, Mantovani A, et al. Cystic lesions as a rare complication of deep brain stimulation. Mov Disord Clin Pract 2016;3(1):87-90.
Waldvogel D, Baumann-Vogel H, Stieglitz L, Hanggi-Schickli R, Baumann CR. Beware of deep water after subthalamic deep brain stimulation. Neurology 2020;94(1):39-41.
Rolston JD, Englot DJ, Starr PA, Larson PS. An unexpectedly high rate of revisions and removals in deep brain stimulation surgery: analysis of multiple databases. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2016;33:72-77.
Voon V, Krack P, Lang AE, et al. A multicentre study on suicide outcomes following subthalamic stimulation for Parkinson’s disease. Brain 2008;131(Pt 10):2720-2728.
Weintraub D, Duda JE, Carlson K, et al. Suicide ideation and behaviours after STN and GPi DBS surgery for Parkinson’s disease: results from a randomised, controlled trial. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2013;84(10):1113-1118.
Miocinovic S, Somayajula S, Chitnis S, Vitek JL. History, applications, and mechanisms of deep brain stimulation. JAMA Neurol 2013;70(2):163-171.
Dostrovsky JO, Levy R, Wu JP, Hutchison WD, Tasker RR, Lozano AM. Microstimulation-induced inhibition of neuronal firing in human globus pallidus. J Neurophysiol 2000;84(1):570-574.
Welter ML, Houeto JL, Bonnet AM, et al. Effects of high-frequency stimulation on subthalamic neuronal activity in parkinsonian patients. Arch Neurol 2004;61(1):89-96.
Hashimoto T, Elder CM, Okun MS, Patrick SK, Vitek JL. Stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus changes the firing pattern of pallidal neurons. J Neurosci 2003;23(5):1916-1923.
McIntyre CC, Grill WM, Sherman DL, Thakor NV. Cellular effects of deep brain stimulation: model-based analysis of activation and inhibition. J Neurophysiol 2004;91(4):1457-1469.
Grill WM, Snyder AN, Miocinovic S. Deep brain stimulation creates an informational lesion of the stimulated nucleus. Neuroreport 2004;15(7):1137-1140.
Kuhn AA, Kempf F, Brucke C, et al. High-frequency stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus suppresses oscillatory beta activity in patients with Parkinson's disease in parallel with improvement in motor performance. J Neurosci 2008;28(24):6165-6173.
de Hemptinne C, Swann NC, Ostrem JL, et al. Therapeutic deep brain stimulation reduces cortical phase-amplitude coupling in Parkinson’s disease. Nat Neurosci 2015;18(5):779-786.
Herrington TM, Cheng JJ, Eskandar EN. Mechanisms of deep brain stimulation. J Neurophysiol 2016;115(1):19-38.
Little S, Pogosyan A, Neal S, et al. Adaptive deep brain stimulation in advanced Parkinson disease. Ann Neurol 2013;74(3):449-457.
Swann NC, de Hemptinne C, Thompson MC, et al. Adaptive deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease using motor cortex sensing. J Neural Eng 2018;15(4):046006.
Malekmohammadi M, Herron J, Velisar A, et al. Kinematic adaptive deep brain stimulation for resting tremor in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 2016;31(3):426-428.
Temel Y, Visser-Vandewalle V, Kaplan S, Kozan R, Daemen MA, Blokland A, et al. Protection of nigral cell death by bilateral subthalamic nucleus stimulation. Brain Res 2006;1120(1):100-105.
Piallat B, Benazzouz A, Benabid AL. Subthalamic nucleus lesion in rats prevents dopaminergic nigral neuron degeneration after striatal 6-OHDA injection: behavioural and immunohistochemical studies. Eur J Neurosci 1996;8(7):1408-1414.
Hacker ML, DeLong MR, Turchan M, et al. Effects of deep brain stimulation on rest tremor progression in early stage Parkinson disease. Neurology 2018;91(5):e463-e471.
Walters H, Shah BB. Focused Ultrasound and other lesioning therapies in movement disorders. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep 2019;19(9):66.
Jourdain VA, Schechtmann G. Health economics and surgical treatment for Parkinson’s disease in a world perspective: results from an international survey. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 2014;92(2):71-79.
Hariz MI, Hariz GM. Therapeutic stimulation versus ablation. Handb Clin Neurol 2013;116:63-71.
Krack P, Martinez-Fernandez R, Del Alamo M, Obeso JA. Current applications and limitations of surgical treatments for movement disorders. Mov Disord 2017;32(1):36-52.
Intemann PM, Masterman D, Subramanian I, et al. Staged bilateral pallidotomy for treatment of Parkinson disease. J Neurosurg 2001;94(3):437-44.
Junque C, Alegret M, Nobbe FA, et al. Cognitive and behavioral changes after unilateral posteroventral pallidotomy: relationship with lesional data from MRI. Mov Disord 1999;14(5):780-789.
Lozano AM, Lang AE. Pallidotomy for Parkinson’s disease. Neurosurg Clin N Am 1998;9(2):325-336.
Matsumoto K, Shichijo F, Fukami T. Long-term follow-up review of cases of Parkinson’s disease after unilateral or bilateral thalamotomy. J Neurosurg 1984;60(5):1033-1044.
Merello M, Starkstein S, Nouzeilles MI, Kuzis G, Leiguarda R. Bilateral pallidotomy for treatment of Parkinson’s disease induced corticobulbar syndrome and psychic akinesia avoidable by globus pallidus lesion combined with contralateral stimulation. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2001;71(5):611-614.
Louw DF, Burchiel KJ. Ablative therapy for movement disorders. Complications in the treatment of movement disorders. Neurosurg Clin N Am 1998;9(2):367-373.
Kim R, Alterman R, Kelly PJ, et al. Efficacy of bilateral pallidotomy. Neurosurg Focus 1997;2(3):e8.
Khabarova EA, Denisova NP, Dmitriev AB, Slavin KV, Verhagen Metman L. Deep Brain Stimulation of the Subthalamic Nucleus in Patients with Parkinson Disease with Prior Pallidotomy or Thalamotomy. Brain Sci. 2018 Apr 16;8(4):66. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci8040066. PMID: 29659494; PMCID: PMC5924402.
Ondo WG, Silay Y, Almaguer M, Jankovic J. Subthalamic deep brain stimulation in patients with a previous pallidotomy. Mov Disord 2006;21(8):1252-1254.
Alvarez L, Macias R, Guridi J, et al. Dorsal subthalamotomy for Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 2001;16(1):72-78.
Barlas O, Hanagasi HA, Imer M, Sahin HA, Sencer S, Emre M. Do unilateral ablative lesions of the subthalamic nucleu in parkinsonian patients lead to hemiballism? Mov Disord 2001;16(2):306-310.
Patel NK, Heywood P, O'Sullivan K, McCarter R, Love S, Gill SS. Unilateral subthalamotomy in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. Brain 2003;126(Pt 5):1136-1145.
Martínez-Fernández R, Rodríguez-Rojas R, Del Álamo M, et al. Focused ultrasound subthalamotomy in patients with asymmetric Parkinson’s disease: a pilot study. Lancet Neurol 2018;17(1):54-63.
Fox MW, Ahlskog JE, Kelly PJ. Stereotactic ventrolateralis thalamotomy for medically refractory tremor in post-levodopa era Parkinson’s disease patients. J Neurosurg 1991;75(5):723-730.
Nagaseki Y, Shibazaki T, Hirai T, et al. Long-term follow-up results of selective VIM-thalamotomy. J Neurosurg 1986;65(3):296-302.
Jankovic J, Cardoso F, Grossman RG, Hamilton WJ. Outcome after stereotactic thalamotomy for parkinsonian, essential, and other types of tremor. Neurosurgery 1995;37(4):680-687.
Kelly PJ, Gillingham FJ. The long-term results of stereotaxic surgery and L-dopa therapy in patients with Parkinson’s disease: a 10-year follow-up study. J Neurosurg 1980;53(3):332-337.
Dallapiazza RF, Lee DJ, De Vloo P, et al. Outcomes from stereotactic surgery for essential tremor. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2019;90(4):474-482.
Baron MS, Vitek JL, Bakay RA, Green J, et al. Treatment of advanced Parkinson’s disease by posterior GPi pallidotomy: 1-year results of a pilot study. Ann Neurol 1996;40(3):355-366.
Fine J, Duff J, Chen R, et al. Long-term follow-up of unilateral pallidotomy in advanced Parkinson’s disease. N Engl J Med 2000;342(23):1708-1714.
Kishore A, Turnbull IM, Snow BJ, et al. Efficacy, stability and predictors of outcome of pallidotomy for Parkinson’s disease. Six-month follow-up with additional 1-year observations. Brain 1997;120 ( Pt 5):729-737.
Hariz MI, Bergenheim AT. A 10-year follow-up review of patients who underwent Leksell's posteroventral pallidotomy for Parkinson disease. J Neurosurg 2001;94(4):552-558.
Samuel M, Caputo E, Brooks D, Schrag A, et al. A study of medial pallidotomy for Parkinson’s disease: clinical outcome, MRI location and complications. Brain J Neurol 1998;121(1):59-75.
Lombardi WJ, Gross RE, Trepanier LL, Lang AE, Lozano AM, Saint-Cyr JA. Relationship of lesion location to cognitive outcome following microelectrode-guided pallidotomy for Parkinson’s disease: support for the existence of cognitive circuits in the human pallidum. Brain 2000;123 ( Pt 4):746-758.
Saint-Cyr J, Trépanier L, Lang A, Lozano A. Neuropsychological outcome of posteroventral pallidotomy in parkinsonian patients. Mov Disord 1996;11(suppl 1):161.
Soukup VM, Ingram F, Schiess MC, Bonnen JG, Nauta HJ, Calverley JR. Cognitive sequelae of unilateral posteroventral pallidotomy. Arch Neurol 1997;54(8):947-950.
Cosman E. Radiofrequency lesions. Textbook of stereotactic and functional neurosurgery 1996.
Duma CM. Movement disorder radiosurgery—planning, physics and complication avoidance, Prog Neurol Surg 2007;20:249-66.
Young RF, Jacques S, Mark R, et al. Gamma knife thalamotomy for treatment of tremor: long-term results. J Neurosurg 2000;93 Suppl 3:128-35.
Duma CM, Jacques DB, Kopyov OV, Mark RJ, Copcutt B, Farokhi HK. Gamma knife radiosurgery for thalamotomy in parkinsonian tremor: a five-year experience. J Neurosurg 1998;88(6):1044-9.
Franzini A, Moosa S, Prada F, Elias WJ. Ultrasound ablation in neurosurgery: current clinical applications and future perspectives. Neurosurgery 2020;87(1):1-10.
Bond AE, Shah BB, Huss DS, et al. Safety and efficacy of focused ultrasound thalamotomy for patients with medication-refractory, tremor-dominant Parkinson disease: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Neurol 2017;74(12):1412-1418.
Schlesinger I, Eran A, Sinai A, et al. MRI Guided Focused Ultrasound Thalamotomy for Moderate-to-Severe Tremor in Parkinson's Disease. Parkinsons Dis. 2015;2015:219149. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/219149
Zaaroor M, Sinai A, Goldsher D, Eran A, Nassar M, Schlesinger I. Magnetic resonance–guided focused ultrasound thalamotomy for tremor: a report of 30 Parkinson's disease and essential tremor cases. J Neurosurg 2017;128(1):202-210.
Jung NY, Park CK, Kim M, Lee PH, Sohn YH, Chang JW. The efficacy and limits of magnetic resonance–guided focused ultrasound pallidotomy for Parkinson’s disease: a phase I clinical trial. J Neurosurg 2018;130(6):1853-1861.
Na YC, Chang WS, Jung HH, Kweon EJ, Chang JW. Unilateral magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound pallidotomy for Parkinson disease. Neurology 2015;85(6):549-51.
Magara A, Buhler R, Moser D, Kowalski M, Pourtehrani P, Jeanmonod D. First experience with MR-guided focused ultrasound in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. J Ther Ultrasound 2014;2:11.
Acknowledgments
Margi Patel received funding from the Parkinson’s Foundation Fellowship Grant.
Required Author Forms
Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the online version of this article
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic Supplementary Material
ESM 1
(PDF 1224 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sharma, V.D., Patel, M. & Miocinovic, S. Surgical Treatment of Parkinson’s Disease: Devices and Lesion Approaches. Neurotherapeutics 17, 1525–1538 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13311-020-00939-x
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13311-020-00939-x