4.6 Article

BILATERAL EFFECTS OF UNILATERAL SUBTHALAMIC DEEP BRAIN STIMULATION ON PARKINSON'S DISEASE AT 1 YEAR

期刊

NEUROSURGERY
卷 65, 期 2, 页码 302-309

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000349764.34211.74

关键词

Deep brain stimulation; Ipsilateral; Parkinson's disease; Subthalamic nucleus; Unilateral

资金

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [K23 NS067053] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the benefit of unilateral subthalamic nucleus (STN) deep brain stimulation (DBS) on contralateral, ipsilateral, and axial symptoms of advanced Parkinson's disease. METHODS: Thirty-seven patients received unilateral STN DBS and were rated on the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) and timed tests of motor function in the practically defined off state at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS: UPDRS motor scores improved significantly at 3, 6, and 12 months relative to the preoperative baseline (P < 0.001, 37.1 % at 1 year). There was improvement in the contralateral UPDRS subscores (P < 0.001, 54.6% at 1 year), and although contralateral benefit was larger on all outcome measures, ipsilateral benefit was present at 3 and 6 months on the UPDRS subscore (P = 0.013 and 23.5%, P = 0.005 and 27.7%, respectively). A trend toward ipsilateral benefit was present on the UPDRS subscore at 12 months; however, the effect was not statistically significant. Two timed tests of motor function in the upper extremities showed significant ipsilateral benefit in bradykinesia at 12 months (P < 0.001 and P = 0.014, respectively). Significant benefit was also observed in the UPDRS part 2 off medications and the UPDRS part 4 after unilateral STN DBS at 12 months (both P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Considering the bilateral effects and tolerability of unilateral STN DBS, unilateral stimulation followed by a contralateral procedure later, if necessary, is a reasonable option for patients with advanced Parkinson's disease, especially with prominent asymmetry.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据