Causes of failure of pallidal deep brain stimulation in cases with pre-operative diagnosis of isolated dystonia.

INTRODUCTION: Pallidal deep brain stimulation (GPi-DBS) is an effective therapy for isolated dystonia, but 10-20% of patients show improvement below 25-30%. We here investigated causes of insufficient response to GPi-DBS in isolated dystonia in a cross-sectional study. METHODS: Patients with isolated dystonia at time of surgery, and <30% improvement on the Burke-Fahn-Marsden dystonia-rating-scale (BFMDRS) after ≥6 months of continuous GPi-DBS were videotaped ON and OFF stimulation, and history, preoperative videos, brain MRI, medical records, stimulation settings, stimulation system integrity, lead location, and genetic information were obtained and reviewed by an expert panel. RESULTS: 22 patients from 11 centres were included (8 men, 14 women; 9 generalized, 9 segmental, 3 focal, 1 bibrachial dystonia; mean (range): age 48.7 (25-72) years, disease duration 22.0 (2-40) years, DBS duration 45.5 (6-131) months). Mean BFMDRS-score was 31.7 (4-93) preoperatively and 32.3 (5-101) postoperatively. Half of the patients (n = 11) had poor lead positioning alone or in combination with other problems (combined with: other disease n = 6, functional dystonia n = 1, other problems n = 2). Other problems were disease other than isolated inherited or idiopathic dystonia (n = 5), fixed deformities (n = 2), functional dystonia (n = 3), and other causes (n = 1). Excluding patients with poor lead location from further analysis, non-isolated dystonia accounted for 45.5%, functional dystonia for 27.3%, and fixed deformities for 18.2%. In patients with true isolated dystonia, lead location was the most frequent problem. CONCLUSION: After exclusion of lead placement and stimulation programming issues, non-isolated dystonia, functional dystonia and fixed deformities account for the majority of GPi-DBS failures in dystonia.

DYT7 gene locus for cervical dystonia on chromosome 18p is questionable.

BACKGROUND: A locus implicated in autosomal dominant cervical dystonia was assigned to chromosome 18p in 1 large family more than 15 years ago. This locus was designated DYT7. We reanalyzed the family clinically and genetically. METHODS: Clinical reevaluation of all family members was performed. There was Sanger sequencing of candidate genes, SNP array analysis, and exome sequencing in definitely affected family members. RESULTS: Diagnosis of cervical dystonia was definite in 6 family members and possible in 12. Analysis of candidate genes in 18p revealed no alteration in definitely affected patients. There was no disease causing copy number variant in 18p. No potentially disease-causing mutations were detected in 18p by exome sequencing. The CIZ1 gene, mutated in some cases of cervical dystonia, was excluded. CONCLUSIONS: Location of DYT7 on 18p in autosomal dominant cervical dystonia is questionable. We demonstrate genetic heterogeneity of this form of dystonia.