Evaluation of the PaCER Algorithm for Postoperative Subthalamic Nucleus Deep Brain Stimulation Electrode Localization.

Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) is an established therapy for many movement disorders. DBS entails electrical stimulation of precise brain structures using permanently implanted electrodes. Following implantation, locating the electrodes relative to the target brain structure assists patient outcome optimization. Here we evaluated an open-source automatic algorithm (PaCER) to localize individual electrodes on Computed Tomography imaging (co-registered to Magnetic Resonance Imaging). In a dataset of 111 participants, we found a modified version of the algorithm matched manual-markups with median error less than 0.191 mm (interquartile range 0.698 mm). Given the error is less than the voxel resolution (1 mm3) of the images, we conclude that the automatic algorithm is suitable for DBS electrode localizations.Clinical Relevance- Automated DBS electrode localization identifies the closest electrode to the target brain structure; allowing the neurologist to direct electrical stimulation to maximize patient outcomes. Further, if none of the electrodes are deemed suitable, localization will guide re-implantation.

Electrically evoked and spontaneous neural activity in the subthalamic nucleus under general anesthesia.

OBJECTIVE: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) surgery is commonly performed with the patient awake to facilitate assessments of electrode positioning. However, awake neurosurgery can be a barrier to patients receiving DBS. Electrode implantation can be performed with the patient under general anesthesia (GA) using intraoperative imaging, although such techniques are not widely available. Electrophysiological features can also aid in the identification of target neural regions and provide functional evidence of electrode placement. Here we assess the presence and positional variation under GA of spontaneous beta and high-frequency oscillation (HFO) activity, and evoked resonant neural activity (ERNA), a novel evoked response localized to the subthalamic nucleus. METHODS: ERNA, beta, and HFO were intraoperatively recorded from DBS leads comprising four individual electrodes immediately after bilateral awake implantation into the subthalamic nucleus of 21 patients with Parkinson's disease (42 hemispheres) and after subsequent GA induction deep enough to perform pulse generator implantation. The main anesthetic agent was either propofol (10 patients) or sevoflurane (11 patients). RESULTS: GA reduced the amplitude of ERNA, beta, and HFO activity (p < 0.001); however, ERNA amplitudes remained large in comparison to spontaneous local field potentials. Notably, a moderately strong correlation between awake ERNA amplitude and electrode distance to an "ideal" therapeutic target within dorsal STN was preserved under GA (awake: ρ = -0.73, adjusted p value [padj] < 0.001; GA: ρ = -0.69, padj < 0.001). In contrast, correlations were diminished under GA for beta (awake: ρ = -0.45, padj < 0.001; GA: ρ = -0.13, padj = 0.12) and HFO (awake: ρ = -0.69, padj < 0.001; GA: ρ = -0.33, padj < 0.001). The largest ERNA occurred at the same electrode (awake vs GA) for 35/42 hemispheres (83.3%) and corresponded closely to the electrode selected by the clinician for chronic therapy at 12 months (awake ERNA 77.5%, GA ERNA 82.5%). The largest beta amplitude occurred at the same electrode (awake vs GA) for only 17/42 (40.5%) hemispheres and 21/42 (50%) for HFO. The electrode measuring the largest awake beta and HFO amplitudes corresponded to the electrode selected by the clinician for chronic therapy at 12 months in 60% and 70% of hemispheres, respectively. However, this correspondence diminished substantially under GA (beta 20%, HFO 35%). CONCLUSIONS: ERNA is a robust electrophysiological signal localized to the dorsal subthalamic nucleus subregion that is largely preserved under GA, indicating it could feasibly guide electrode implantation, either alone or in complementary use with existing methods.

A palm-worn device to quantify rigidity in Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Parkinsonian rigidity is identified on clinical examination as resistance to passive movement. Measurement of rigidity commonly relies on ordinal rating scales (MDS-UPDRS), however instrumented objective measures may provide greater mechanistic insight. NEW METHOD: We present a palm-worn instrument to objectively quantify rigidity on a continuous scale. The device employs a miniature motor to flex the third digit of the hand about the metacarpophalangeal joint whilst transducers record flexion/extension forces. We aim to determine congruence with the MDS-UPDRS, investigate sensitivity to the impact of deep brain stimulation (DBS) and contralateral movement, and make comparisons with healthy individuals. Eight participants with Parkinson's disease underwent evaluation during conditions: on and off DBS, and with and without contralateral limb movement to activate rigidity. During each DBS condition, wash-in/out effects were tracked using both our instrument and two blinded clinical raters. Sixteen healthy volunteers (age-matched/young) served as controls. RESULTS: Rigidity measured using our instrument had moderate agreement with the MDS-UPDRS and showed differences between therapeutic state, activation conditions, and disease/healthy cohorts. Rigidity gradually worsened over a one-hour period after DBS cessation, but improved more rapidly with DBS resumption. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHODS: Previous attempts to quantify rigidity include manual approaches where a clinician is required to manipulate limbs while sensors passively gather information, or large automated instruments to move the wrist or elbow. CONCLUSION: Given its ability to track changes in rigidity due to therapeutic intervention, our technique could have applications where continuous measurement is required or where a suitably qualified rater is absent.