Magnetic resonance guided focused ultrasound thalamotomy for essential tremor

Magnetic resonance guided focused ultrasound thalamotomy for essential tremor

Magnetic resonance guided focused ultrasound is a minimally invasive surgical procedure for symptomatic treatment of Parkinson Disease. With this technology, the ventral intermediate nucleusSTN, and internal globus pallidus have been targeted for therapeutic cerebral ablation, while also minimizing the risk of hemorrhage and infection from more invasive neurosurgical procedures.

In a pilot study published in 2013, essential tremor improved in 15 patients treated with magnetic resonance guided focused ultrasound thalamotomy1).

Clinical trials have confirmed the efficacy of focused ultrasound (FUS) thalamotomy in essential tremor, but its effectiveness and safety for managing tremor-dominant Parkinson disease (TDPD) is unknown.

It might change the way that patients with essential tremor and potentially other disorders are treated 2).

The post-treatment effectiveness was evaluated using the clinical rating scale for tremors. Thalamic MRgHIFU had substantial therapeutic effects on patients, based on MRgHIFU-mediated improvements in movement control and significant changes in brain mu rhythms. Ultrasonic thalamotomy may reduce hyper-excitable activity in the motor cortex, resulting in normalized behavioral activity after sonication treatment. Thus, non-invasive and spatially accurate MRgHIFU technology can serve as a potent therapeutic tool with broad clinical applications 3).

Magnetic resonance guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) for thalamotomy is a safe, effective and less-invasive surgical method for treating medication-refractory essential tremor (ET). However, several issues must be resolved before clinical application of MRgFUS, including optimal patient selection and management of patients during treatment 4).

Jung et al. found different MRI pattern evolution after MRgFUS for white matter and gray matter. Their results suggest that skull characteristics, such as low skull density, should be evaluated prior to MRgFUS to successfully achieve thermal rise 5).

In a large academic medical center in the mid-Atlantic region, the Department of Neurosurgery conducted a continued access study, recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration, to evaluate the effectiveness of transcranial FUS thalamotomy for the treatment of medication-refractory ET.

One patient’s experience will be introduced, including discussion of evidence-based treatment options for ET and information on the nursing management of the patient undergoing FUS thalamotomy 6).

A PubMed search was performed adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies were included if hand tremor scores (HTS), total Clinical Rating Scale for Tremor (CRST) scores, or Quality of Life in Essential Tremor Questionnaire (QUEST) scores at regular intervals following MRgFUS treatment for essential tremor were documented. Data analyses included a random effects model of meta-analysis and mixed-effects model of meta-regression. Twenty-one articles reporting HTS for 395 patients were included. Mean pre-operative HTS was 19.2 ± 5.0. Mean HTS at 3 months post-treatment was 7.4 ± 5.0 (61.5% improvement, p < 0.001). Treatment effect was mildly decreased at 36 months at 9.1 ± 5.4 (8.8% reduction). Meta-regression of time since treatment as a modifier of HTS revealed a downward trend in effect size, though this was not statistically significant (p = 0.208). Only 4 studies included follow-up ≥ 24 months. Thirteen included articles reported total CRST scores with standardized follow-up for 250 patients. Mean pre-operative total CRST score decreased by 46.2% at 3 months post-treatment (p < 0.001). Additionally, mean QUEST scores at 3 months post-treatment significantly improved compared to baseline (p < 0.001). HTS is significantly improved from baseline ≥ 24 months post-treatment and possibly ≥ 48 months post-treatment. There is a current paucity of long-term CRST and QUEST score reporting in the literature 7).

In a double-blinded, prospective, sham-controlled randomized controlled trial of MR-guided focused ultrasound thalamotomy for treatment of tremor-dominant PD, 62% of treated patients demonstrated improvement in tremor scores from baseline to 3 months postoperatively, as compared to 22% in the sham group. There has been only one open-label trial of MR-guided focused ultrasound subthalamotomy for patients with PD, demonstrating improvements of 71% for rigidity, 36% for akinesia, and 77% for tremor 6 months after treatment. Among the two open-label trials of MR-guided focused ultrasound pallidotomy for patients with PD, dyskinesia and overall motor scores improved up to 52% and 45% at 6 months postoperatively. Although MR-guided focused ultrasound thalamotomy is now approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treatment of parkinsonian tremor, additional high-quality randomized controlled trials are warranted and are underway to determine the safety and efficacy of MR-guided focused ultrasound subthalamotomy and pallidotomy for treatment of the cardinal features of PD. These studies will be paramount to aid clinicians to determine the ideal ablative target for individual patients. Additional work will be required to assess the durability of MR-guided focused ultrasound lesions, ideal timing of MR-guided focused ultrasound ablation in the course of PD, and the safety of performing bilateral lesions 8).

see Magnetic resonance guided focused ultrasound thalamotomy for essential tremor case series.

A 55-yr-old man with a history of right frontal craniotomy for resection of a colloid cyst underwent a left ventrointermedius nucleus thalamotomy through MRgFUS. The prior craniotomy flap was not excluded in the treatment plan; however, all bony defects and hardware were marked as “no-pass” regions. Clinical outcomes were collected at the 6-mo follow-up.

Transducer elements whose acoustic paths would have been altered by the craniotomy defect were turned off. Sonications reaching lesional temperatures of up to 56°C were successfully delivered. The procedure was well-tolerated, without any persistent intra-ablation or post-ablation adverse effects. The presence of a lesion was confirmed on MRI, which was associated with a significant reduction in the patient’s tremor that was sustained at the 6-mo follow-up.

This case demonstrates the safety and efficacy of MRgFUS thalamotomy in a patient with prior craniotomies and highlights our strategy for acoustic lesioning in this setting 9).


De Vloo et al. reported on an ET patient who underwent an Magnetic resonance guided focused ultrasound thalamotomy but experienced tremor recurrence. They expanded the MRgFUS-induced thalamic cavity using radiofrequency (RF), with good effect on the tremor but transient sensorimotor deficits and permanent ataxia. This is the first report of a patient undergoing RF thalamotomy after an unsuccessful MRgFUS thalamotomy. As they used microelectrode recording to guide the RF thalamotomy, they could also study for the first time the electrophysiological properties of previously sonicated thalamic neurons bordering the MRgFUS-induced cavity. These neurons displayed electrophysiological characteristics identical to those recorded from nonsonicated thalamic cells in ET patients. Hence, this findings support the widespread assumption that sonication below the necrotic threshold does not permanently alter neuronal function 10).



1)

Elias WJ, Huss D, Voss T, Loomba J, Khaled M, Zadicario E, Frysinger RC, Sperling SA, Wylie S, Monteith SJ, Druzgal J, Shah BB, Harrison M, Wintermark M. A pilot study of focused ultrasound thalamotomy for essential tremor. N Engl J Med. 2013 Aug 15;369(7):640-8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1300962. PubMed PMID: 23944301.
2)

Lipsman N, Schwartz ML, Huang Y, Lee L, Sankar T, Chapman M, Hynynen K, Lozano AM. MR-guided focused ultrasound thalamotomy for essential tremor: a proof-of-concept study. Lancet Neurol. 2013 May;12(5):462-8. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(13)70048-6. Epub 2013 Mar 21. PubMed PMID: 23523144.
3)

Chang JW, Min BK, Kim BS, Chang WS, Lee YH. Neurophysiologic correlates of sonication treatment in patients with essential tremor. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2015 Jan;41(1):124-31. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2014.08.008. Epub 2014 Oct 22. PubMed PMID: 25438838.
4)

Chang WS, Jung HH, Kweon EJ, Zadicario E, Rachmilevitch I, Chang JW. Unilateral magnetic resonance guided focused ultrasound thalamotomy for essential tremor: practices and clinicoradiological outcomes. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2015 Mar;86(3):257-64. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2014-307642. Epub 2014 May 29. PubMed PMID: 24876191.
5)

Jung HH, Chang WS, Rachmilevitch I, Tlusty T, Zadicario E, Chang JW. Different magnetic resonance imaging patterns after transcranial magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound of the ventral intermediate nucleus of the thalamus and anterior limb of the internal capsule in patients with essential tremor or obsessive-compulsive disorder. J Neurosurg. 2015 Jan;122(1):162-8. doi: 10.3171/2014.8.JNS132603. PubMed PMID: 25343176.
6)

Shaw KD, Johnston AS, Rush-Evans S, Prather S, Maynard K. Nursing Management of the Patient Undergoing Focused Ultrasound: A New Treatment Option for Essential Tremor. J Neurosci Nurs. 2017 Aug 16. doi: 10.1097/JNN.0000000000000301. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 28817495.
7)

Miller WK, Becker KN, Caras AJ, Mansour TR, Mays MT, Rashid M, Schwalb J. Magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound treatment for essential tremor shows sustained efficacy: a meta-analysis. Neurosurg Rev. 2021 May 12. doi: 10.1007/s10143-021-01562-w. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 33978922.
8)

Moosa S, Martínez-Fernández R, Elias WJ, Del Alamo M, Eisenberg HM, Fishman PS. The role of high-intensity focused ultrasound as a symptomatic treatment for Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord. 2019 Jul 10. doi: 10.1002/mds.27779. [Epub ahead of print] Review. PubMed PMID: 31291491.
9)

Wathen C, Yang AI, Hitti FL, Henry L, Chaibainou H, Baltuch GH. Feasibility of Magnetic Resonance-Guided Focused Ultrasound Thalamotomy for Essential Tremor in the Setting of Prior Craniotomy. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown). 2022 Feb 1;22(2):61-65. doi: 10.1227/ONS.0000000000000012. PMID: 35007218.
10)

De Vloo P, Milosevic L, Gramer RM, et al. Microelectrode Recording and Radiofrequency Thalamotomy following Focused Ultrasound Thalamotomy [published online ahead of print, 2020 Sep 16]. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. 2020;1-4. doi:10.1159/000510109

Low-frequency deep brain stimulation

Low-frequency deep brain stimulation

Patients with Parkinson’s disease can develop axial symptoms, including speechgait, and balance difficulties. Chronic high-frequency deep brain stimulation (>100 Hz) can contribute to these impairments while low-frequency stimulation (<100 Hz) may improve symptoms but only in some individuals.

DBS at frequencies below 100 Hz is a therapeutic option in select cases of Parkinson’s disease with freezing of gait and other axial symptoms, and in select patients with dystonia and other hyperkinetic movements, particularly those requiring an energy-saving strategy 1).

In ten studies with 132 patients, the pooled results showed no significant difference in the total Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale part III (UPDRS-III) scores (mean effect, -1.50; p = 0.19) or the rigidity subscore between HFS and LFS. Compared to LFS, HFS induced a greater reduction in the tremor subscore within the medication-off condition (mean effect, 1.01; p = 0.002), while no significance was shown within the medication-on condition (mean effect, 0.01; p = 0.92). LFS induced greater reduction in akinesia subscore (mean effect, -1.68, p = 0.003), the time to complete the stand-walk-sit (SWS) test (mean effect, -4.84; p < 0.00001), and the number of freezing of gait (FOG) (mean effect, -1.71; p = 0.03). These results suggest that two types of frequency settings may have different effects, that is, HFS induces better responses for tremor and LFS induces greater response for akinesia, gait, and FOG, respectively, which are worthwhile to be confirmed in a future study, and will ultimately inform the clinical practice in the management of PD using STN-DBS 2).

Vijiaratnam et al. from the Department of Clinical and Movement Neurosciences, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, Unit of Functional Neurosurgery, the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, Unit of Neurology of Ospedale “M. Bufalini” of Cesena, Cesena, Italy Department of Neurology, the Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool recruited patients who developed axial motor symptoms while using high-frequency stimulation and objectively assessed the short-term impact of low-frequency stimulation on axial symptoms, other aspects of motor function and quality of life. A retrospective chart review was then conducted on a larger cohort to identify which patient characteristics were associated with not only the need to trial low-frequency stimulation but also those which predicted its sustained use. Among 20 prospective patients, low-frequency stimulation objectively improved mean motor and axial symptom severity and quality of life in the short term. Among a retrospective cohort of 168 patients, those with less severe tremor and those in whom axial symptoms had emerged sooner after subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation were more likely to be switched to and remain on long-term low-frequency stimulation. These data suggest that low-frequency stimulation results in objective mean improvements in overall motor function and axial symptoms among a group of patients, while individual patient characteristics can predict sustained long-term benefits. Longer follow-up in the context of a larger, controlled, double-blinded study would be required to provide definitive evidence of the role of low-frequency deep brain stimulation 3).


To investigate whether LF-SNr-DBS combined with standard HF stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus (STN) is clinically relevant in improving gait disorders that no longer respond to levodopa in PD patients, compared with HF-STN or LF-SNr stimulation alone.

Methods: Patients received LF-SNr or HF-STN stimulation alone or combined (COMB) stimulation of both nuclei (crossover design). The nucleus to be stimulated was randomly assigned and clinical evaluations performed by a blinded examiner after three months follow-up for each. Clinical assessment included the Freezing of Gait questionnaire, Tinetti Balance and Walking Assessing tool, and Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating.

Results: We included six patients (mean age 59.1 years, disease duration 16.1 years). All patients suffered motor fluctuations and dyskinesias. The best results were obtained with COMB in four patients (who preferred and remained with COMB over 3 years of follow-up) and with HF-STN in two patients. SNr stimulation alone did not produce better results than COMB or STN in any patient.

Conclusion: COMB and HF-STN stimulation improved PD-associated gait disorders in this preliminary case series, sustained over time. Further multicenter investigations are required to better explore this therapeutic option 4).


Sidiropoulos et al. studied the effects of low-frequency stimulation (LFS) (≤80 Hz) for improving speech, gait, and balance dysfunction in the largest patient population to date. PD patients with bilateral STN-DBS and resistant axial symptoms were switched from chronic 130 Hz stimulation to LFS and followed up to 4 years. Primary outcome measures were total motor UPDRS scores, and axial and gait subscores before and after LFS. Bivariate analyses and correlation coefficients were calculated for the different conditions. Potential predictors of therapeutic response were also investigated. Forty-five advanced PD patients who had high-frequency stimulation (HFS) for 39.5 ± 27.8 consecutive months were switched to LFS. LFS was kept on for a median period of 111.5 days before the assessment. There was no significant improvement in any of the primary outcomes between HFS and LFS, although a minority of patients preferred to be maintained on LFS for longer periods of time. No predictive factors of response could be identified. There was overall no improvement from LFS in axial symptoms. This could be partly due to some study limitations. Larger prospective trials are warranted to better clarify the impact of stimulation frequency on axial signs 5).


1)

Baizabal-Carvallo JF, Alonso-Juarez M. Low-frequency deep brain stimulation for movement disorders. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2016 Oct;31:14-22. doi: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2016.07.018. Epub 2016 Jul 30. PMID: 27497841.
2)

Su D, Chen H, Hu W, Liu Y, Wang Z, Wang X, Liu G, Ma H, Zhou J, Feng T. Frequency-dependent effects of subthalamic deep brain stimulation on motor symptoms in Parkinson’s disease: a meta-analysis of controlled trials. Sci Rep. 2018 Sep 27;8(1):14456. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-32161-3. PMID: 30262859; PMCID: PMC6160461.
3)

Vijiaratnam N, Girges C, Wirth T, Grover T, Preda F, Tripoliti E, Foley J, Scelzo E, Macerollo A, Akram H, Hyam J, Zrinzo L, Limousin P, Foltynie T. Long-term success of low-frequency subthalamic nucleus stimulation for Parkinson’s disease depends on tremor severity and symptom duration. Brain Commun. 2021 Jul 28;3(3):fcab165. doi: 10.1093/braincomms/fcab165. PMID: 34396114; PMCID: PMC8361419.
4)

Valldeoriola F, Muñoz E, Rumià J, Roldán P, Cámara A, Compta Y, Martí MJ, Tolosa E. Simultaneous low-frequency deep brain stimulation of the substantia nigra pars reticulata and high-frequency stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus to treat levodopa unresponsive freezing of gait in Parkinson’s disease: A pilot study. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2019 Mar;60:153-157. doi: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2018.09.008. Epub 2018 Sep 5. PMID: 30241951.
5)

Sidiropoulos C, Walsh R, Meaney C, Poon YY, Fallis M, Moro E. Low-frequency subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation for axial symptoms in advanced Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol. 2013 Sep;260(9):2306-11. doi: 10.1007/s00415-013-6983-2. Epub 2013 Jun 9. PMID: 23749331.

Subthalamic deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease outcome

The bilateral effects of deep brain stimulation (DBS) on motor and non-motor symptoms of Parkinson’s disease (PD) have been extensively studied and reviewed. However, the unilateral effects-in particular, the potential lateralized effects of left- versus right-sided DBS-have not been adequately recognized or studied.

Lin et al. summarized the current evidence and controversies in the literature regarding the lateralized effects of DBS on motor and non-motor outcomes in PD patients. Publications in the English language before February 2021 were obtained from the PubMed database and included if they directly compared the effects of unilateral versus contralateral side DBS on the motor or non-motor outcomes in PD. The current literature is overall of low-quality and is biased by various confounders. Researchers have investigated mainly PD patients receiving subthalamic nucleus (STN) DBS while the potential lateralized effects of globus pallidus internus (GPi) DBS have not been adequately studied. Evidence suggests potential lateralized effects of STN DBS on axial motor symptoms and deleterious effects of left-sided DBS on language-related functions, in particular, the verbal fluency, in PD. The lateralized DBS effects on appendicular motor symptoms as well as other neurocognitive and neuropsychiatric domains remain inconclusive. Future studies should control for varying methodological approaches as well as clinical and DBS management heterogeneities, including symptom laterality, stimulation parameters, location of active contacts, and lead trajectories. This would contribute to improved treatment strategies such as personalized target selection, surgical planning, and postoperative management that ultimately benefit patients 1).


The surgical and clinical outcomes of asleep DBS for Parkinson’s disease are comparable to those of awake DBS 2).


Suboptimal targeting within the STN can give rise to intolerable sensorimotor side effects, such as dysarthria, contractions and paresthesias 3) 4) 5). eye movement perturbations, and psychiatric symptoms 6) 7) 8), limiting the management of motor symptoms. The small size of the STN motor territory and the consequences of spreading current to immediately adjacent structures obligate precise targeting. Neurosurgeons therefore rely on a combination of imaging, electrophysiology, kinesthetic responses, and stimulation testing to accurately place the DBS lead into the sensorimotor domain of STN 9) 10) 11).

Deep Brain Stimulation has been associated with post-operative neuropsychology changes, especially in verbal memory.

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of subthalamic nucleus (STN) is widely accepted to treat advanced Parkinson disease (PD). However, published studies were mainly conducted in Western centers 12).

High frequency subthalamic nucleus (STN) deep brain stimulation (DBS) improves the cardinal motor signs of Parkinson’s disease (PD) and attenuates STN alpha/beta band neural synchrony in a voltage-dependent manner. While there is a growing interest in the behavioral effects of lower frequency (60 Hz) DBS, little is known about its effect on STN neural synchrony.

Low-frequency stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus via the optimal contacts is effective in improving overall motor function of patients with Parkinson Disease 13). In Parkinson’s disease significantly improved important aspects of QoL as measured by PDQ-39. The improvements were maintained at 2 years follow-up except for social support and communication. Sobstyl et al., demonstrated a positive correlation between changes in the off condition of motor UPDRS scores and Unified Dyskinesia Rating Scale in several PDQ-39 dimensions, whereas fluctuation UPDRS scores were negatively correlated with PDQ-39 mobility scores 14).

The degree of clinical improvement achieved by deep brain stimulation (DBS) is largely dependent on the accuracy of lead placement.

A study reports on the evaluation of intraoperative MRI (iMRI) for adjusting deviated electrodes to the accurate anatomical position during DBS surgery and acute intracranial changes 15).


Although dementia is a contraindication in deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease, the concept is supported by little scientific evidence. Moreover, it is unclear whether PD with mild cognitive impairment (PD-MCI) or domain-specific cognitive impairments affect the outcome of DBS in non-demented PD patients.

Baseline cognitive levels of patients with PD who underwent DBS were classified into PD with dementia (PDD) (n = 15), PD-MCI (n = 210), and normal cognition (PD-NC) (n = 79). The impact of the cognitive level on key DBS outcome measures [mortality, nursing home admission, progression to Hoehn&Yahr (HY) stage 5 and progression to PDD] were analyzed using Cox regression models. Park et al. also investigated whether impairment of a specific cognitive domain could predict these outcomes in non-demented patients.

Results: Patients with PDD showed a substantially higher risk of nursing home admission and progression to HY stage 5 compared with patients with PD-MCI [hazard ratio (HR) 4.20, P = .002; HR = 5.29, P < .001] and PD-NC (HR 7.50, P < .001; HR = 7.93, P < .001). MCI did not alter the prognosis in patients without dementia, but those with visuospatial impairment showed poorer outcomes for nursing home admission (P = .015), progression to HY stage 5 (P = .027) and PDD (P = .006).

Conclusions: Cognitive profiles may stratify the pre-operative risk and predict long-term outcomes of DBS in PD 16).


1)

Lin Z, Zhang C, Li D, Sun B. Lateralized effects of deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease: evidence and controversies. NPJ Parkinsons Dis. 2021 Jul 22;7(1):64. doi: 10.1038/s41531-021-00209-3. PMID: 34294724.
2)

Wang J, Ponce FA, Tao J, Yu HM, Liu JY, Wang YJ, Luan GM, Ou SW. Comparison of Awake and Asleep Deep Brain Stimulation for Parkinson’s Disease: A Detailed Analysis Through Literature Review. Neuromodulation. 2019 Dec 12. doi: 10.1111/ner.13061. [Epub ahead of print] Review. PubMed PMID: 31830772.
3) , 10)

Benabid AL, Chabardes S, Mitrofanis J, Pollak P: Deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. Lancet Neurol 8:67–81, 2009
4) , 11)

Groiss SJ, Wojtecki L, Südmeyer M, Schnitzler A: Deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease. Ther Adv Neurol Disorder 2:20–28, 2009
5)

Zhang S, Zhou P, Jiang S, Wang W, Li P: Interleaving subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation to avoid side effects while achieving satisfactory motor benefits in Parkinson disease: a report of 12 cases. Medicine (Baltimore) 95:e5575, 2016
6)

Kulisevsky J, Berthier ML, Gironell A, Pascual-Sedano B, Molet J, Parés P: Mania following deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease. Neurology 59:1421–1424, 2002
7)

Mallet L, Schüpbach M, N’Diaye K, Remy P, Bardinet E, Czernecki V, et al: Stimulation of subterritories of the subthalamic nucleus reveals its role in the integration of the emotional and motor aspects of behavior. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:10661–10666, 2007
8)

Raucher-Chéné D, Charrel CL, de Maindreville AD, Limosin F: Manic episode with psychotic symptoms in a patient with Parkinson’s disease treated by subthalamic nucleus stimulation: improvement on switching the target. J Neurol Sci 273:116–117, 2008
9)

Abosch A, Timmermann L, Bartley S, Rietkerk HG, Whiting D, Connolly PJ, et al: An international survey of deep brain stimulation procedural steps. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 91:1–11, 2013
12)

Chiou SM, Lin YC, Huang HM. One-year Outcome of Bilateral Subthalamic Stimulation in Parkinson Disease: An Eastern Experience. World Neurosurg. 2015 Jun 10. pii: S1878-8750(15)00709-3. doi: 0.1016/j.wneu.2015.06.002. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26072454.
13)

Khoo HM, Kishima H, Hosomi K, Maruo T, Tani N, Oshino S, Shimokawa T, Yokoe M, Mochizuki H, Saitoh Y, Yoshimine T. Low-frequency subthalamic nucleus stimulation in Parkinson’s disease: A randomized clinical trial. Mov Disord. 2014 Jan 21. doi: 10.1002/mds.25810. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 24449169.
14)

Sobstyl M, Ząbek M, Górecki W, Mossakowski Z. Quality of life in advanced Parkinson’s disease after bilateral subthalamic stimulation: 2 years follow-up study. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2014 Sep;124:161-5. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2014.06.019. Epub 2014 Jun 23. PubMed PMID: 25051167.
15)

Cui Z, Pan L, Song H, Xu X, Xu B, Yu X, Ling Z. Intraoperative MRI for optimizing electrode placement for deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus in Parkinson disease. J Neurosurg. 2016 Jan;124(1):62-9. doi: 10.3171/2015.1.JNS141534. Epub 2015 Aug 14. PubMed PMID: 26274983.
16)

Park KW, Jo S, Kim MS, et al. Cognitive profile as a predictor of the long-term outcome after deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease [published online ahead of print, 2020 Jul 28]. J Neurol Sci. 2020;417:117063. doi:10.1016/j.jns.2020.117063
WhatsApp WhatsApp us
%d bloggers like this: