OBJECTIVE Recent studies have shown similar clinical outcomes between Parkinson disease (PD) patients treated with deep brain stimulation (DBS) under general anesthesia without microelectrode recording (MER), so-called "asleep" DBS, and historical cohorts undergoing "awake" DBS with MER guidance. However, few studies include internal controls. This study aims to compare clinical outcomes after globus pallidus internus (GPi) and subthalamic nucleus (STN) DBS using awake and asleep techniques at a single institution. METHODS PD patients undergoing awake or asleep bilateral GPi or STN DBS were prospectively monitored. The primary outcome measure was stimulation-induced change in motor function off medication 6 months postoperatively, measured using the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale part III (UPDRS-III). Secondary outcomes included change in quality of life, measured by the 39-item Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39), change in levodopa equivalent daily dosage (LEDD), stereotactic accuracy, stimulation parameters, and adverse events. RESULTS Six-month outcome data were available for 133 patients treated over 45 months (78 GPi [16 awake, 62 asleep] and 55 STN [14 awake, 41 asleep]). UPDRS-III score improvement with stimulation did not differ between awake and asleep groups for GPi (awake, 20.8 points [38.5%]; asleep, 18.8 points [37.5%]; p = 0.45) or STN (awake, 21.6 points [40.3%]; asleep, 26.1 points [48.8%]; p = 0.20) targets. The percentage improvement in PDQ-39 and LEDD was similar for awake and asleep groups for both GPi (p = 0.80 and p = 0.54, respectively) and STN cohorts (p = 0.85 and p = 0.49, respectively). CONCLUSIONS In PD patients, bilateral GPi and STN DBS using the asleep method resulted in motor, quality-of-life, and medication reduction outcomes that were comparable to those of the awake method.

No abstract

LITT therapy for HH can achieve excellent rates of seizure control with low morbidity and a short postoperative stay in a majority of patients. Additional research is needed to assess the durability of results and the full spectrum of cognitive outcomes.

OBJECTIVE As the number of deep brain stimulation (DBS) procedures performed under general anesthesia ("asleep" DBS) increases, it is more important to assess the rates of adverse events, inpatient lengths of stay (LOS), and 30-day readmission rates in patients undergoing these procedures compared with those in patients undergoing traditional "awake" DBS without general anesthesia. METHODS All patients in an institutional database who had undergone awake or asleep DBS procedures performed by a single surgeon between August 2011 and August 2014 were reviewed. Adverse events, inpatient LOS, and 30-day readmissions were analyzed. RESULTS A total of 490 electrodes were placed in 284 patients, of whom 126 (44.4%) underwent awake surgery and 158 (55.6%) underwent asleep surgery. The most frequent overall complication for the cohort was postoperative mental status change (13 patients [4.6%]), followed by hemorrhage (4 patients [1.4%]), seizure (4 patients [1.4%]), and hardware-related infection (3 patients [1.1%]). Mean LOS for all 284 patients was 1.19 ± 1.29 days (awake: 1.06 ± 0.46 days; asleep: 1.30 ± 1.67 days; p = 0.08). Overall, the 30-day readmission rate was 1.4% (1 awake patient, 3 asleep patients). There were no significant differences in complications, LOS, and 30-day readmissions between awake and asleep groups. CONCLUSIONS Both awake and asleep DBS can be performed safely with low complication rates. The authors found no significant differences between the 2 procedure groups in adverse events, inpatient LOS, and 30-day readmission rates.

OBJECT Deep brain stimulation (DBS) performed under general anesthesia ("asleep" DBS) has not been previously reported for essential tremor. This is in part due to the inability to visualize the target (the ventral intermediate nucleus [VIM]) on MRI. The authors evaluate the efficacy of this asleep technique in treating essential tremor by indirect VIM targeting. METHODS The authors retrospectively reviewed consecutive cases of initial DBS for essential tremor performed by a single surgeon. DBS was performed with patients awake (n = 40, intraoperative test stimulation without microelectrode recording) or asleep (n = 17, under general anesthesia). Targeting proceeded with standardized anatomical coordinates on preoperative MRI. Intraoperative CT was used for stereotactic registration and lead position confirmation. Functional outcomes were evaluated with pre- and postoperative Bain and Findley Tremor Activities of Daily Living scores. RESULTS A total of 29 leads were placed in asleep patients, and 60 were placed in awake patients. Bain and Findley Tremor Activities of Daily Living Questionnaire scores were not significantly different preoperatively for awake versus asleep cohorts (p = 0.2). The percentage of postoperative improvement was not significantly different between asleep (48.6%) and awake (45.5%) cohorts (p = 0.35). Euclidean error (mm) was higher for awake versus asleep patients (1.7 ± 0.8 vs 1.2 ± 0.4, p = 0.01), and radial error (mm) trended higherfor awake versus asleep patients (1.3 ± 0.8 vs 0.9 ± 0.5, p = 0.06). There were no perioperative complications. CONCLUSIONS In the authors' initial experience, asleep VIM DBS for essential tremor without intraoperative test stimulation can be performed safely and effectively.

No abstract

BACKGROUND Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is well-established, evidence-based therapy for Parkinson disease, essential tremor, and primary dystonia. Clinical outcome studies have recently shown that “asleep” DBS lead placement, performed using intraoperative imaging with stereotactic accuracy as the surgical endpoint, has motor outcomes comparable to traditional “awake” DBS using microelectrode recording (MER), but with shorter case times and improved speech fluency. OBJECTIVE To identify procedural variables in DBS surgery associated with improved surgical efficiency and stereotactic accuracy. METHODS Retrospective review of 323 cases with 546 leads placed (August 2011-October 2014). In 52% (n = 168) of cases, patients were asleep under general anesthesia without MER. Multivariate regression identified independent predictors of reduced surgery time and improved stereotactic accuracy. RESULTS MER was an independent contributor to increased procedure time (+44 min; P = .03). Stereotactic accuracy was better in asleep patients. Accuracy was improved with frame-based stereotaxy at head of bed 0° vs frameless stereotaxy at head of bed 30°. Improved accuracy was also associated with shorter procedures (r = 0.17; P = .049). Vector errors were evenly distributed around the planned target for the globus pallidus internus, but directionally skewed for the subthalamic (medial-posterior) and ventral intermediate nuclei (medial-anterior). CONCLUSION Distinct procedural variables in DBS surgery are associated with reduced case times and improved stereotactic accuracy.

OBJECTIVE Ventral intermediate nucleus deep brain stimulation (DBS) for essential tremor is traditionally performed with intraoperative test stimulation and conscious sedation, without general anesthesia (GA). Recently, the authors reported retrospective data on 17 patients undergoing DBS after induction of GA with standardized anatomical coordinates on T1-weighted MRI sequences used for indirect targeting. Here, they compare prospectively collected data from essential tremor patients undergoing DBS both with GA and without GA (non-GA). METHODS Clinical outcomes were prospectively collected at baseline and 3-month follow-up for patients undergoing DBS surgery performed by a single surgeon. Stereotactic, euclidean, and radial errors of lead placement were calculated. Functional (activities of daily living), quality of life (Quality of Life in Essential Tremor [QUEST] questionnaire), and tremor severity outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS Fifty-six patients underwent surgery: 16 without GA (24 electrodes) and 40 with GA (66 electrodes). The mean baseline functional scores and QUEST summary indices were not different between groups (p = 0.91 and p = 0.59, respectively). Non-GA and GA groups did not differ significantly regarding mean postoperative percentages of functional improvement (non-GA, 47.9% vs GA, 48.1%; p = 0.96) or QUEST summary indices (non-GA, 79.9% vs GA, 74.8%; p = 0.50). Accuracy was comparable between groups (mean radial error 0.9 ± 0.3 mm for non-GA and 0.9 ± 0.4 mm for GA patients) (p = 0.75). The mean euclidean error was also similar between groups (non-GA, 1.1 ± 0.6 mm vs GA, 1.2 ± 0.5 mm; p = 0.92). No patient had an intraoperative complication, and the number of postoperative complications was not different between groups (non-GA, n = 1 vs GA, n = 10; p = 0.16). CONCLUSIONS DBS performed with the patient under GA to treat essential tremor is as safe and effective as traditional DBS surgery with intraoperative test stimulation while the patient is under conscious sedation without GA.