OBJECTIVEThe field of deep brain stimulation (DBS) for epilepsy has grown tremendously since its inception in the 1970s and 1980s. The goal of this review is to identify and evaluate all studies published on the topic of open-loop DBS for epilepsy over the past decade (2008 to present).METHODSA PubMed search was conducted to identify all articles reporting clinical outcomes of open-loop DBS for the treatment of epilepsy published since January 1, 2008. The following composite search terms were used: (“epilepsy” [MeSH] OR “seizures” [MeSH] OR “kindling, neurologic” [MeSH] OR epilep* OR seizure* OR convuls*) AND (“deep brain stimulation” [MeSH] OR “deep brain stimulation” OR “DBS”) OR (“electric stimulation therapy” [MeSH] OR “electric stimulation therapy” OR “implantable neurostimulators” [MeSH]).RESULTSThe authors identified 41 studies that met the criteria for inclusion. The anterior nucleus of the thalamus, centromedian nucleus of the thalamus, and hippocampus were the most frequently evaluated targets. Among the 41 articles, 19 reported on stimulation of the anterior nucleus of the thalamus, 6 evaluated stimulation of the centromedian nucleus of the thalamus, and 9 evaluated stimulation of the hippocampus. The remaining 7 articles reported on the evaluation of alternative DBS targets, including the posterior hypothalamus, subthalamic nucleus, ventral intermediate nucleus of the thalamus, nucleus accumbens, caudal zone incerta, mammillothalamic tract, and fornix. The authors evaluated each study for overall epilepsy response rates as well as adverse events and other significant, nonepilepsy outcomes.CONCLUSIONSLevel I evidence supports the safety and efficacy of stimulating the anterior nucleus of the thalamus and the hippocampus for the treatment of medically refractory epilepsy. Level III and IV evidence supports stimulation of other targets for epilepsy. Ongoing research into the efficacy, adverse effects, and mechanisms of open-loop DBS continues to expand the knowledge supporting the use of these treatment modalities in patients with refractory epilepsy.

Background: Development of a widely accepted standardised analgesic pathway for adult spine surgery has been hampered by the lack of quantitative analysis. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare, rank, and grade all pharmacological and regional interventions used in adult spine surgery. Methods: A systematic search was performed in January 2021. We performed double study screening, selection, and data extraction. The co-primary outcomes were cumulative morphine consumption (mg) and visual analogue pain score (range 0e10) at postoperative 24 h. An NMA was performed using the Bayesian approach (random effects model). We also ranked and graded all analgesic interventions using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach for NMA. Results: We screened 5908 studies and included 86 randomised controlled studies, which comprised 6284 participants. Of 20 pharmacological and 10 regional interventions, the most effective intervention was triple-drug therapy, consisting of paracetamol, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and adjunct. The pooled mean reduction in morphine consumption and pain score at postoperative 24 h were e26 (95% credible interval [CrI]: e39 to e12) mg and e2.3 (95% CrI: e3.1 to e1.4), respectively. Double-drug therapy was less effective, but showed moderate morphine reduction in a range of e15 to e17 mg and pain score reduction in a range of e1 to e1.6. Single-agent interventions were largely ineffective. Conclusions: Triple-drug therapy is the most effective pain intervention in adult spine surgery with moderate-to-high certainty of evidence. We have also identified a graded analgesic effect, in which analgesic efficacy increased with the number of multimodal drugs used. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO (CRD42020171326).

No abstract

N/A.