Ventral intermediate nucleus of the thalamus, dentatorubrothalamic tract, and caudal zona incerta: stimulation of which structure provides ongoing tremor control in patients with essential tremor?
IF 4.3 3区 材料科学Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC
Luigi G Remore, Ziad Rifi, Evangelia Tsolaki, Michael J Ward, Wenxin Wei, Meskerem Tolossa, Marco Locatelli, Ausaf A Bari
{"title":"Ventral intermediate nucleus of the thalamus, dentatorubrothalamic tract, and caudal zona incerta: stimulation of which structure provides ongoing tremor control in patients with essential tremor?","authors":"Luigi G Remore, Ziad Rifi, Evangelia Tsolaki, Michael J Ward, Wenxin Wei, Meskerem Tolossa, Marco Locatelli, Ausaf A Bari","doi":"10.3171/2024.3.FOCUS2425","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Essential tremor (ET) is the most common movement disorder. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) targeting the ventral intermediate nucleus (VIM) is known to improve symptoms in patients with medication-resistant ET. However, the clinical effectiveness of VIM-DBS may vary, and other targets have been proposed. The authors aimed to investigate whether the same anatomical structure is responsible for tremor control both immediately after VIM-DBS and at later follow-up evaluations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Of 68 electrodes from 41 patients with ET, the authors mapped the distances of the active contact from the VIM, the dentatorubrothalamic tract (DRTT), and the caudal zona incerta (cZI) and compared them using Friedman's ANOVA and the Wilcoxon signed-rank follow-up test. The same distances were also compared between the initially planned target and the final implantation site after intraoperative macrostimulation. Finally, the comparison among the three structures was repeated for 16 electrodes whose active contact was changed after a mean 37.5 months follow-up to improve tremor control.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After lead implantation, the VIM was statistically significantly closer to the active contact than both the DRTT (p = 0.008) and cZI (p < 0.001). This result did not change if the target was moved based on intraoperative macrostimulation. At the last follow-up, the active contact distance from the VIM was always significantly less than that of the cZI (p < 0.001), but the distance from the DRTT was reduced and even less than the distance from the VIM.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients receiving VIM-DBS, the VIM itself is the structure driving the anti-tremor effect and remains more effective than the cZI, even years after implantation. Nevertheless, the role of the DRTT may become more important over time and may help sustain the clinical efficacy when the habituation from the VIM stimulation ensues.</p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3171/2024.3.FOCUS2425","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: Essential tremor (ET) is the most common movement disorder. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) targeting the ventral intermediate nucleus (VIM) is known to improve symptoms in patients with medication-resistant ET. However, the clinical effectiveness of VIM-DBS may vary, and other targets have been proposed. The authors aimed to investigate whether the same anatomical structure is responsible for tremor control both immediately after VIM-DBS and at later follow-up evaluations.
Methods: Of 68 electrodes from 41 patients with ET, the authors mapped the distances of the active contact from the VIM, the dentatorubrothalamic tract (DRTT), and the caudal zona incerta (cZI) and compared them using Friedman's ANOVA and the Wilcoxon signed-rank follow-up test. The same distances were also compared between the initially planned target and the final implantation site after intraoperative macrostimulation. Finally, the comparison among the three structures was repeated for 16 electrodes whose active contact was changed after a mean 37.5 months follow-up to improve tremor control.
Results: After lead implantation, the VIM was statistically significantly closer to the active contact than both the DRTT (p = 0.008) and cZI (p < 0.001). This result did not change if the target was moved based on intraoperative macrostimulation. At the last follow-up, the active contact distance from the VIM was always significantly less than that of the cZI (p < 0.001), but the distance from the DRTT was reduced and even less than the distance from the VIM.
Conclusions: In patients receiving VIM-DBS, the VIM itself is the structure driving the anti-tremor effect and remains more effective than the cZI, even years after implantation. Nevertheless, the role of the DRTT may become more important over time and may help sustain the clinical efficacy when the habituation from the VIM stimulation ensues.