Objective To evaluate deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the posterior subthalamic area (PSA) in essential tremor (ET) and compare it to the ventral intermediate nucleus of the thalamus (VIM) in terms of stimulation efficacy, efficiency, and side effects. Methods DBS leads were implanted such that contacts were placed in the VIM, on the intercommissural line, and in the PSA. Thirteen patients with ET entered a randomized, double-blind crossover phase and completed a 1-year follow-up. Results PSA-DBS significantly reduced tremor severity and improved quality of life. There were no relevant differences in quality and frequency of stimulation side effects between VIM and PSA, with a tendency toward greater tremor improvement with PSA stimulation. Clinical benefit was achieved at significantly lower stimulation amplitudes in the PSA. The majority of patients remained with PSA-DBS after 1 year. Conclusion In accordance with previous retrospective investigations, our prospective data suggest that PSA-DBS is at least equally effective as but possibly more efficient than VIM-DBS. Classification of evidence This study provides Class I evidence that for patients with essential tremor, PSA-DBS is not significantly different from VIM-DBS in suppressing tremor, but clinical benefit from PSA-DBS is attained at lower stimulation amplitudes.

Objective: To investigate in patients with essential tremor (ET) treated with thalamic/subthalamic deep brain stimulation (DBS) whether stimulation-induced dysarthria (SID) can be diminished by individualized current-shaping with interleaving stimulation (cs-ILS) while maintaining tremor suppression (TS). Methods: Of 26 patients screened, 10 reported SID and were invited for testing. TS was assessed by the Tremor Rating Scale and kinematic analysis of postural and action tremor. SID was assessed by phonetic and logopedic means. Additionally, patients rated their dysarthria on a visual analog scale. Results: In 6 of the 10 patients with ET, DBS-ON (relative to DBS-OFF) led to SID while tremor was successfully reduced. When comparing individualized cs-ILS with a non–current-shaped interleaving stimulation (ILS) in these patients, there was no difference in TS while 4 of the 6 patients showed subjective improvement of speech during cs-ILS. Phonetic analysis (ILS vs cs-ILS) revealed that during cs-ILS there was a reduction of voicing during the production of voiceless stop consonants and also a trend toward an improvement in oral diadochokinetic rate, reflecting less dysarthria. Logopedic rating showed a trend toward deterioration in the diadochokinesis task when comparing ON with OFF but no difference between ILS and cs-ILS. Conclusion: This is a proof-of-principle evaluation of current-shaping in patients with ET treated with thalamic/subthalamic DBS and experiencing SID. Data suggest a benefit on SID from individual shaping of current spread while TS is preserved. Classification of evidence: This study provides Class IV evidence that in patients with ET treated with DBS with SID, individualized cs-ILS reduces dysarthria while maintaining tremor control.