Ponce, Francisco A.

Importance The Implantable Neurostimulator for the Treatment of Parkinson’s Disease (INTREPID) trial was a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study of subthalamic nucleus (STN) deep brain stimulation (DBS) for the treatment of Parkinson disease (PD). Objective To evaluate the long-term (5-year) outcomes and safety of STN-DBS for PD. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a prospective, randomized (3:1), 12-week double-blind sham-controlled study at 23 movement disorder centers across the US with an open-label 5-year follow-up. Patients were implanted and followed up with the Vercise DBS system from May 2013 to December 2022. Eligibility required diagnosis of bilateral idiopathic PD with more than 5 years of motor symptoms, more than 6 hours per day of poor motor function, modified Hoehn and Yahr Scale scores higher than 2, Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS-III) score of 30 or higher (medication-off state), and 33% or higher improvement in UPDRS-III medication-on score. Intervention Bilateral STN-DBS for moderate to advanced PD. Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcomes included changes in UPDRS and dyskinesia scores, quality-of-life measures, and safety assessments. Exploratory analyses included medication reduction and DBS association with motor signs. Results A total of 313 patients were enrolled with 191 receiving the DBS system, and 137 participants (72%) completed the study. The study population had a mean (SD) age of 60 (7.9) years, with 139 (73%) male participants. Motor function without medication as measured by UPDRS-III improved from a mean (SD) of 42.8 (9.4) to 21.1 (10.6) at year 1 (51%; 95% CI, 49%-53%; P < .001) and 27.6 (11.6) at year 5 (36%; 95% CI, 33%-38%; P < .001). Activities of daily living without medication as measured by UPDRS-II improved from a mean (SD) of 20.6 (6.0) to 12.4 (6.1) at year 1 (41%; 95% CI, 38%-42%; P < .001) and 16.4 (6.5) at year 5 (22%; 95% CI, 18%-23%; P < .001). Dyskinesia scores decreased from 4.0 (5.1) to 1.0 (2.1) at year 1 (75%; 95% CI, 73%-75%; P < .001) and to 1.2 (2.1) at year 5 (70%; 95% CI, 63%-75%; P < .001). The levodopa equivalent dose was reduced by 28% at year 1, remaining stable at year 5 (28%; 95% CI, 26%-31%; P < .001). The most common serious adverse event was infection (9 participants). Ten deaths were reported, none related to the study. Conclusions and Relevance Although STN-DBS outcomes declined slightly, possibly due to the progressive nature of the disease, patients with PD sustained significant improvement in motor and activities of daily living scores, along with a stable reduction in anti-parkinsonian medication over the 5-year follow-up period.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Stereotactic procedures are used to manage a diverse set of patients across a variety of clinical contexts. The stereotactic devices and software used in these procedures vary between surgeons, but the fundamental principles that constitute safe and accurate execution do not. The aim of this work is to describe these principles to equip readers with a generalizable knowledge base to execute and understand stereotactic procedures. METHODS: A combination of a review of the literature and empirical experience from several experienced surgeons led to the creation of this work. Thus, this work is descriptive and qualitative by nature, and the literature is used to support instead of generate the ideas of this framework. RESULTS: The principles detailed in this work are categorized based on 5 clinical domains: imaging, registration, mechanical accuracy, target planning and adjustment, and trajectory planning and adjustment. Illustrations and tables are used throughout to convey the concepts in an efficient manner. CONCLUSION: Stereotactic procedures are complex, requiring a thorough understanding of each step of the workflow. The concepts described in this work enable functional neurosurgeons with the fundamental knowledge necessary to provide optimal patient care.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Identifying and characterizing sources of targeting error in stereotactic procedures is essential to maximizing accuracy, potentially improving surgical outcomes. We aim to describe a generic framework which characterizes sources of stereotactic inaccuracy. METHODS: We assembled a list of stereotactic systems: ROSA, Neuromate, Mazor Renaissance, ExcelsiusGPS, Cirq, STarFix (FHC), Nexframe, ClearPoint, CRW, and Leksell. We searched the literature for qualitative and quantitative work identifying and quantifying potential sources of inaccuracy and describing each system's implementation using Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research guidelines. Our literature search spanned 1969 to 2024, and various studies were included, with formats ranging from phantom studies to systematic reviews. Keyword searches were conducted, and the details about each system were used to create a framework for identifying and describing the unique targeting error profile of each system. RESULTS: We describe and illustrate the details of various sources of stereotactic inaccuracies and generate a framework to unify these sources into a single framework. This framework entails 5 domains: imaging, registration, mechanical accuracy, target planning and adjustment, and trajectory planning and adjustment. This framework was applied to 10 stereotactic systems. CONCLUSION: This framework provides a rubric to analyze the sources of error for any stereotactic system. Illustrations allow the reader to understand sources of error conceptually so that they may apply them to their practice.