Objective: To examine the short- and long-term clinical outcomes of the bilateral subthalamic nucleus (STN) and globus pallidus internus (GPi) deep brain stimulation (DBS) on gait and axial symptoms in Parkinson’s disease (PD) patients. Available data have been inconsistent and mostly short-term regarding the effect of both brain targets on gait and axial symptoms. We aimed to identify potential target specific differences at 3-year follow-up from a large single-center experience. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed short-term (6-month follow-up) and long-term (36-month follow-up) changes in the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) Part II and III total scores of 72 PD patients (53 with bilateral STN-DBS and 19 with bilateral GPi-DBS). An interdisciplinary team made target-specific decisions for each DBS patient. We analyzed changes in gait and axial subscores derived from UPDRS II and III. Results: In both the STN- and GPi-DBS cohorts, we observed no significant differences in gait and axial UPDRS derived subscores in the off-med/on stimulation state at long-term follow-up when compared to baseline. On-med axial scores remained similar in the short-term but worsened in both groups (STN, 2.23 ± 3.43, p < 0.001; GPi, 2.53 ± 2.37, p < 0.01) in the long-term possibly due to disease progression. At long-term follow-up, the UPDRS III off-med/on stimulation scores worsened but were persistently improved from baseline in both groups (−9.07 ± 13.9, p < 0.001). Conclusions: The study showed that long-term both STN- and GPi-DBS had a similar effect on gait and axial symptoms in UPDRS derived subscores at 36-month follow-up despite potential baseline differences in criteria for selection of each target. More sophisticated measures of gait and balance beyond the categorical UPDRS score will be needed for future studies.

SUMMARY: Deep brain stimulation is an established therapy for multiple brain disorders, with rapidly expanding potential indications. Neuroimaging has advanced the field of deep brain stimulation through improvements in delineation of anatomy, and, more recently, application of brain connectomics. Older lesion-derived, localizationist theories of these conditions have evolved to newer, network-based “circuitopathies,” aided by the ability to directly assess these brain circuits in vivo through the use of advanced neuroimaging techniques, such as diffusion tractography and fMRI. In this review, we use a combination of ultra-high-field MR imaging and diffusion tractography to highlight relevant anatomy for the currently approved indications for deep brain stimulation in the United States: essential tremor, Parkinson disease, drug-resistant epilepsy, dystonia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. We also review the literature regarding the use of fMRI and diffusion tractography in understanding the role of deep brain stimulation in these disorders, as well as their potential use in both surgical targeting and device programming.

Objectives To elucidate the phenotypes and pathophysiology of speech and voice disorders in Parkinson's disease (PD) with subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation (STN-DBS). Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study on 76 PD patients treated with bilateral STN-DBS (PD-DBS) and 33 medically treated PD patients (PD-Med). Speech and voice functions, electrode positions, motor function and cognitive function were comprehensively assessed. Moreover, speech and voice functions were compared between the on-stimulation and off-stimulation conditions in 42 PD-DBS patients. Results Speech and voice disorders in PD-DBS patients were significantly worse than those in PD-Med patients. Factor analysis and subsequent cluster analysis classified PD-DBS patients into five clusters: relatively good speech and voice function type, 25%; stuttering type, 24%; breathy voice type, 16%; strained voice type, 18%; and spastic dysarthria type, 17%. STN-DBS ameliorated voice tremor or low volume; however, it deteriorated the overall speech intelligibility in most patients. Breathy voice did not show significant changes and stuttering exhibited slight improvement after stopping stimulation. In contrast, patients with strained voice type or spastic dysarthria type showed a greater improvement after stopping stimulation. Spastic dysarthria type patients showed speech disorders similar to spastic dysarthria, which is associated with bilateral upper motor neuron involvement. Strained voice type and spastic dysarthria type appeared to be related to current diffusion to the corticobulbar fibres. Conclusions Stuttering and breathy voice can be aggravated by STN-DBS, but are mainly due to aging or PD itself. Strained voice and spastic dysarthria are considered corticobulbar side effects.

Objective To assess longitudinal tremor outcomes with ventral intermediate nucleus deep brain stimulation (VIM DBS) in patients with dystonic tremor (DT) and to compare with DBS outcomes in essential tremor (ET). Methods We retrospectively investigated VIM DBS outcomes for 163 patients followed at our center diagnosed with either DT or ET. The Fahn-Tolosa-Marin tremor rating scale (TRS) was used to assess change in tremor and activities of daily living (ADL) at 6 months, 1 year, 2–3 years, 4–5 years, and ≥6 years after surgery. Results Twenty-six patients with DT and 97 patients with ET were analyzed. Compared to preoperative baseline, there were significant improvements in TRS motor up to 4–5 years (52.2%; p = 0.032) but this did not reach statistical significance at ≥6 years (46.0%, p = 0.063) in DT, which was comparable to the outcomes in ET. While the improvements in the upper extremity tremor, head tremor, and axial tremor were also comparable between DT and ET throughout the follow-up, the ADL improvements in DT were lost at 2–3 years follow-up. Conclusion Overall, tremor control with VIM DBS in DT and ET was comparable and remained sustained at long term likely related to intervention at the final common node in the pathologic tremor network. However, the long-term ADL improvements in DT were not sustained, possibly due to inadequate control of concomitant dystonia symptoms. These findings from a large cohort of DT indicate that VIM targeting is reasonable if the tremor is considerably more disabling than the dystonic features. Classification of evidence This study provides Class IV evidence that VIM DBS improves tremor in patients with DT or ET.

The pathophysiology of dystonic tremor and essential tremor remains partially understood. In patients with medication-refractory dystonic tremor or essential tremor, deep brain stimulation (DBS) targeting the thalamus or posterior subthalamic area has evolved into a promising treatment option. However, the optimal DBS targets for these disorders remains unknown. This retrospective study explored the optimal targets for DBS in essential tremor and dystonic tremor using a combination of volumes of tissue activated estimation and functional and structural connectivity analyses. We included 20 patients with dystonic tremor who underwent unilateral thalamic DBS, along with a matched cohort of 20 patients with essential tremor DBS. Tremor severity was assessed preoperatively and approximately 6 months after DBS implantation using the Fahn-Tolosa-Marin Tremor Rating Scale. The tremor-suppressing effects of DBS were estimated using the percentage improvement in the unilateral tremor-rating scale score contralateral to the side of implantation. The optimal stimulation region, based on the cluster centre of gravity for peak contralateral motor score improvement, for essential tremor was located in the ventral intermediate nucleus region and for dystonic tremor in the ventralis oralis posterior nucleus region along the ventral intermediate nucleus/ventralis oralis posterior nucleus border (4 mm anterior and 3 mm superior to that for essential tremor). Both disorders showed similar functional connectivity patterns: a positive correlation between tremor improvement and involvement of the primary sensorimotor, secondary motor and associative prefrontal regions. Tremor improvement, however, was tightly correlated with the primary sensorimotor regions in essential tremor, whereas in dystonic tremor, the correlation was tighter with the premotor and prefrontal regions. The dentato-rubro-thalamic tract, comprising the decussating and non-decussating fibres, significantly correlated with tremor improvement in both dystonic and essential tremor. In contrast, the pallidothalamic tracts, which primarily project to the ventralis oralis posterior nucleus region, significantly correlated with tremor improvement only in dystonic tremor. Our findings support the hypothesis that the pathophysiology underpinning dystonic tremor involves both the cerebello-thalamo-cortical network and the basal ganglia-thalamo-cortical network. Further our data suggest that the pathophysiology of essential tremor is primarily attributable to the abnormalities within the cerebello-thalamo-cortical network. We conclude that the ventral intermediate nucleus/ventralis oralis posterior nucleus border and ventral intermediate nucleus region may be a reasonable DBS target for patients with medication-refractory dystonic tremor and essential tremor, respectively. Uncovering the pathophysiology of these disorders may in the future aid in further improving DBS outcomes.