Frontal circuits play a critical role in motor, cognitive and affective processing, and their dysfunction may result in a variety of brain disorders. However, exactly which frontal domains mediate which (dys)functions remains largely elusive. We studied 534 deep brain stimulation electrodes implanted to treat four different brain disorders. By analyzing which connections were modulated for optimal therapeutic response across these disorders, we segregated the frontal cortex into circuits that had become dysfunctional in each of them. Dysfunctional circuits were topographically arranged from occipital to frontal, ranging from interconnections with sensorimotor cortices in dystonia, the primary motor cortex in Tourette’s syndrome, the supplementary motor area in Parkinson’s disease, to ventromedial prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortices in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Our findings highlight the integration of deep brain stimulation with brain connectomics as a powerful tool to explore couplings between brain structure and functional impairments in the human brain.

A consensus has yet to emerge whether deep brain stimulation (DBS) for treatment-refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) can be considered an established therapy. In 2014, the World Society for Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery (WSSFN) published consensus guidelines stating that a therapy becomes established when “at least two blinded randomized controlled clinical trials from two different groups of researchers are published, both reporting an acceptable risk-benefit ratio, at least comparable with other existing therapies. The clinical trials should be on the same brain area for the same psychiatric indication.” The authors have now compiled the available evidence to make a clear statement on whether DBS for OCD is established therapy. Two blinded randomized controlled trials have been published, one with level I evidence (Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) score improved 37% during stimulation on), the other with level II evidence (25% improvement). A clinical cohort study (N = 70) showed 40% Y-BOCS score improvement during DBS, and a prospective international multi-center study 42% improvement (N = 30). The WSSFN states that electrical stimulation for otherwise treatment refractory OCD using a multipolar electrode implanted in the ventral anterior capsule region (including bed nucleus of stria terminalis and nucleus accumbens) remains investigational. It represents an emerging, but not yet established therapy. A multidisciplinary team involving psychiatrists and neurosurgeons is a prerequisite for such therapy, and the future of surgical treatment of psychiatric patients remains in the realm of the psychiatrist.

Obsessive-compulsive disorder is one of the most disabling of all psychiatric illnesses. Despite available pharmacological and psychotherapeutic treatments about 10% of patients remain severely affected and are considered treatment-refractory. For some of these patients deep brain stimulation offers an appropriate treatment method. The scope of this article is to review the published data and to compare different target structures and their effectiveness. PubMed search, last update June 2013, was conducted using the terms “deep brain stimulation” and “obsessive compulsive disorder”. In total 25 studies were found that reported five deep brain stimulation target structures to treat obsessive-compulsive disorder: the anterior limb of the internal capsule (five studies including 14 patients), nucleus accumbens (eight studies including 37 patients), ventral capsule/ventral striatum (four studies including 29 patients), subthalamic nucleus (five studies including 23 patients) and inferior thalamic peduncle (two studies including 6 patients). Despite the anatomical diversity, deep brain stimulation treatment results in similar response rates for the first four target structures. Inferior thalamic peduncle deep brain stimulation results in higher response rates but these results have to be interpreted with caution due to a very small number of cases. Procedure and device related adverse events are relatively low, as well as stimulation or therapy related side effects. Most stimulation related side effects are transient and decline after stimulation parameters have been changed. Deep brain stimulation in treatment-refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder seems to be a relatively safe and promising treatment option. However, based on these studies no superior target structure could be identified. More research is needed to better understand mechanisms of action and response predictors that may help to develop a more personalized approach for these severely affected obsessive compulsive patients.

Treatment resistance in alcohol use disorders (AUD) is a major problem for affected individuals and for society. In the search of new treatment options, few case studies using deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the nucleus accumbens have indicated positive effects in AUD. Here we report a double-blind randomized controlled trial comparing active DBS (“DBS-EARLY ON”) against sham stimulation (“DBS-LATE ON”) over 6 months in n = 12 AUD inpatients. This 6-month blind phase was followed by a 12-month unblinded period in which all patients received active DBS. Continuous abstinence (primary outcome), alcohol use, alcohol craving, depressiveness, anxiety, anhedonia and quality of life served as outcome parameters. The primary intention-to-treat analysis, comparing continuous abstinence between treatment groups, did not yield statistically significant results, most likely due to the restricted number of participants. In light of the resulting limited statistical power, there is the question of whether DBS effects on secondary outcomes can nonetheless be interpreted as indicative of an therapeutic effect. Analyses of secondary outcomes provide evidence for this, demonstrating a significantly higher proportion of abstinent days, lower alcohol craving and anhedonia in the DBS-EARLY ON group 6 months after randomization. Exploratory responder analyses indicated that patients with high baseline alcohol craving, depressiveness and anhedonia responded to DBS. The results of this first randomized controlled trial are suggestive of beneficial effects of DBS in treatment-resistant AUD and encourage a replication in larger samples.