Concerns About Psychiatric Neurosurgery and How They Can Be Overcome: Recommendations for Responsible Research

IF 2.6 4区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Sabine Müller, Ansel van Oosterhout, Chris Bervoets, Markus Christen, Roberto Martínez-Álvarez, Merlin Bittlinger
{"title":"Concerns About Psychiatric Neurosurgery and How They Can Be Overcome: Recommendations for Responsible Research","authors":"Sabine Müller, Ansel van Oosterhout, Chris Bervoets, Markus Christen, Roberto Martínez-Álvarez, Merlin Bittlinger","doi":"10.1007/s12152-022-09485-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Background</h3><p>Psychiatric neurosurgery is experiencing a revival. Beside deep brain stimulation (DBS), several ablative neurosurgical procedures are currently in use. Each approach has a different profile of advantages and disadvantages. However, many psychiatrists, ethicists, and laypeople are sceptical about psychiatric neurosurgery.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>We identify the main concerns against psychiatric neurosurgery, and discuss the extent to which they are justified and how they might be overcome. We review the evidence for the effectiveness, efficacy and safety of each approach, and discuss how this could be improved. We analyse whether and, if so, how randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can be used in the different approaches, and what alternatives are available if conducting RCTs is impossible for practical or ethical reasons. Specifically, we analyse the problem of failed RCTs after promising open-label studies.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>The main concerns are: (i) reservations based on historical psychosurgery, (ii) concerns about personality changes, (iii) concerns regarding localised interventions, and (iv) scepticism due to the lack of scientific evidence. Given the need for effective therapies for treatment-refractory psychiatric disorders and preliminary evidence for the effectiveness of psychiatric neurosurgery, further research is warranted and necessary. Since psychiatric neurosurgery has the potential to modify personality traits, it should be held to the highest ethical and scientific standards.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusions</h3><p>Psychiatric neurosurgery procedures with preliminary evidence for efficacy and an acceptable risk–benefit profile include DBS and micro- or radiosurgical anterior capsulotomy for intractable obsessive–compulsive disorder. These methods may be considered for individual treatment attempts, but multi-centre RCTs are necessary to provide reliable evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":49255,"journal":{"name":"Neuroethics","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuroethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-022-09485-z","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Background

Psychiatric neurosurgery is experiencing a revival. Beside deep brain stimulation (DBS), several ablative neurosurgical procedures are currently in use. Each approach has a different profile of advantages and disadvantages. However, many psychiatrists, ethicists, and laypeople are sceptical about psychiatric neurosurgery.

Methods

We identify the main concerns against psychiatric neurosurgery, and discuss the extent to which they are justified and how they might be overcome. We review the evidence for the effectiveness, efficacy and safety of each approach, and discuss how this could be improved. We analyse whether and, if so, how randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can be used in the different approaches, and what alternatives are available if conducting RCTs is impossible for practical or ethical reasons. Specifically, we analyse the problem of failed RCTs after promising open-label studies.

Results

The main concerns are: (i) reservations based on historical psychosurgery, (ii) concerns about personality changes, (iii) concerns regarding localised interventions, and (iv) scepticism due to the lack of scientific evidence. Given the need for effective therapies for treatment-refractory psychiatric disorders and preliminary evidence for the effectiveness of psychiatric neurosurgery, further research is warranted and necessary. Since psychiatric neurosurgery has the potential to modify personality traits, it should be held to the highest ethical and scientific standards.

Conclusions

Psychiatric neurosurgery procedures with preliminary evidence for efficacy and an acceptable risk–benefit profile include DBS and micro- or radiosurgical anterior capsulotomy for intractable obsessive–compulsive disorder. These methods may be considered for individual treatment attempts, but multi-centre RCTs are necessary to provide reliable evidence.

对精神神经外科的担忧及如何克服:对负责任研究的建议
背景:精神神经外科正在经历复兴。除了深部脑刺激(DBS)外,目前还在使用几种烧蚀性神经外科手术。每种方法都有不同的优点和缺点。然而,许多精神病学家、伦理学家和非专业人士对精神神经外科手术持怀疑态度。方法我们确定了对精神神经外科的主要担忧,并讨论了它们的合理程度以及如何克服它们。我们回顾了每种方法的有效性、疗效和安全性的证据,并讨论了如何进行改进。我们分析了随机对照试验(RCTs)是否可以在不同的方法中使用,如果可以,如何使用,以及如果由于实际或伦理原因无法进行随机对照试验,可以使用哪些替代方法。具体来说,我们分析了有希望的开放标签研究后失败的随机对照试验的问题。结果主要的担忧是:(i)基于历史精神外科的保留,(ii)对人格改变的担忧,(iii)对局部干预的担忧,以及(iv)由于缺乏科学证据而产生的怀疑。鉴于对难治性精神疾病的有效治疗的需求和精神神经外科有效性的初步证据,进一步的研究是有保证和必要的。由于精神神经外科手术有可能改变人格特征,它应该被保持在最高的道德和科学标准。结论:有初步疗效证据和可接受的风险-收益分析的精神神经外科手术包括DBS和显微或放射外科前囊切开术治疗顽固性强迫症。这些方法可用于个体治疗尝试,但多中心随机对照试验是必要的,以提供可靠的证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neuroethics
Neuroethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
31
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Neuroethics is an international, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to academic articles on the ethical, legal, political, social and philosophical questions provoked by research in the contemporary sciences of the mind and brain; especially, but not only, neuroscience, psychiatry and psychology. The journal publishes articles on questions raised by the sciences of the brain and mind, and on the ways in which the sciences of the brain and mind illuminate longstanding debates in ethics and philosophy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信