Deep brain stimulation under general anaesthesia for Parkinson's disease: A retrospective evaluation of perioperative events and anaesthetic management after switching away from conscious sedation.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Marta Garcia-Orellana, Felipe Maldonado, Paola Hurtado, Gabriel Pujol-Fontrodona, Pedro Roldán, Alejandra Mosteiro, Jordi Rumià, Almudena Sánchez-Gómez, Nicolás De Riva, Neus Fàbregas, Isabel Gracia, Francisco Javier Tercero, Eugènia Pujol-Ayach, Ricard Valero
{"title":"Deep brain stimulation under general anaesthesia for Parkinson's disease: A retrospective evaluation of perioperative events and anaesthetic management after switching away from conscious sedation.","authors":"Marta Garcia-Orellana, Felipe Maldonado, Paola Hurtado, Gabriel Pujol-Fontrodona, Pedro Roldán, Alejandra Mosteiro, Jordi Rumià, Almudena Sánchez-Gómez, Nicolás De Riva, Neus Fàbregas, Isabel Gracia, Francisco Javier Tercero, Eugènia Pujol-Ayach, Ricard Valero","doi":"10.1111/aas.70017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Deep brain stimulation has become the standard of care for refractory Parkinson's disease. Neuroimaging advances have led to image-based targeting of the subthalamic nucleus under general anaesthesia (GA), an approach that renders unnecessary microelectrode recording and stimulation tests under local anaesthesia and conscious sedation (CS). We aimed to compare procedures and incidents related to each anaesthetic approach.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective descriptive comparison of deep brain stimulation under CS versus G. We collected patient and procedure data (e.g., comorbidities, difficult airway criteria, intraoperative monitoring, duration of surgery, hospitalization and motor outcomes) and reviewed intraoperative and postoperative haemodynamic, neurologic and surgery-related incidents.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy-eight procedures were analysed, 36 in the CS group (47.4%) and 42 in the GA group (52.6%). One-third of the patients were women, and the median age was 62 years (range, 33-75). In total, 23 patients experienced at least one perioperative incident, 19 (24.4%) in the CS group and 4 (5.1%) in the GA group (p < .001), even though the GA group included higher-risk patients (p < .05). Fourteen patients (17.9%) presented disorientation/agitation, 12 in the CS group (p < .01). The median duration of the surgery was 5.2 h (range, 3.5-9.2 h) in the CS group, split into two sessions, and 4.6 h (range, 4.1-5.2 h) in the GA group (p < .001). The median (interquartile range [IQR]) hospital stay was also longer in the CS group, at 7.5 days (IQR 6.75-10), compared to 3 days (IQR 3-4) in the GA group (p < .0001). Pre- and postoperative movement disorder evaluations for 38 of the 78 patients (49%) showed significantly improved scores after surgery. No differences were found between the two groups either before (p = .41) or after (p = .52) the surgery.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Deep brain stimulation under GA was associated with fewer perioperative incidents, shorter surgeries and shorter hospital stays.</p><p><strong>Editorial comment: </strong>Patients with Parkinson's disease who are refractory to standard drug therapy may benefit from the implantation of deep-brain stimulating electrodes. In this report, imaging-guided electrode implantation under general anaesthesia was associated with fewer adverse perioperative events as well as shorter procedure times, compared to implantation guided by intraoperative electrode recording and stimulation under conscious sedation. Since imaging- and stimulation-guided implantation confers equal long-term benefits to motor function, the results from the current study suggest that general anaesthesia and imaging-guided implantation represent an overall quality improvement for these patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":6909,"journal":{"name":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","volume":"69 4","pages":"e70017"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.70017","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Deep brain stimulation has become the standard of care for refractory Parkinson's disease. Neuroimaging advances have led to image-based targeting of the subthalamic nucleus under general anaesthesia (GA), an approach that renders unnecessary microelectrode recording and stimulation tests under local anaesthesia and conscious sedation (CS). We aimed to compare procedures and incidents related to each anaesthetic approach.

Methods: Retrospective descriptive comparison of deep brain stimulation under CS versus G. We collected patient and procedure data (e.g., comorbidities, difficult airway criteria, intraoperative monitoring, duration of surgery, hospitalization and motor outcomes) and reviewed intraoperative and postoperative haemodynamic, neurologic and surgery-related incidents.

Results: Seventy-eight procedures were analysed, 36 in the CS group (47.4%) and 42 in the GA group (52.6%). One-third of the patients were women, and the median age was 62 years (range, 33-75). In total, 23 patients experienced at least one perioperative incident, 19 (24.4%) in the CS group and 4 (5.1%) in the GA group (p < .001), even though the GA group included higher-risk patients (p < .05). Fourteen patients (17.9%) presented disorientation/agitation, 12 in the CS group (p < .01). The median duration of the surgery was 5.2 h (range, 3.5-9.2 h) in the CS group, split into two sessions, and 4.6 h (range, 4.1-5.2 h) in the GA group (p < .001). The median (interquartile range [IQR]) hospital stay was also longer in the CS group, at 7.5 days (IQR 6.75-10), compared to 3 days (IQR 3-4) in the GA group (p < .0001). Pre- and postoperative movement disorder evaluations for 38 of the 78 patients (49%) showed significantly improved scores after surgery. No differences were found between the two groups either before (p = .41) or after (p = .52) the surgery.

Conclusions: Deep brain stimulation under GA was associated with fewer perioperative incidents, shorter surgeries and shorter hospital stays.

Editorial comment: Patients with Parkinson's disease who are refractory to standard drug therapy may benefit from the implantation of deep-brain stimulating electrodes. In this report, imaging-guided electrode implantation under general anaesthesia was associated with fewer adverse perioperative events as well as shorter procedure times, compared to implantation guided by intraoperative electrode recording and stimulation under conscious sedation. Since imaging- and stimulation-guided implantation confers equal long-term benefits to motor function, the results from the current study suggest that general anaesthesia and imaging-guided implantation represent an overall quality improvement for these patients.

全身麻醉下脑深部刺激治疗帕金森病:从清醒镇静切换后围手术期事件和麻醉管理的回顾性评估
背景:脑深部电刺激已成为治疗难治性帕金森病的标准疗法。神经影像学的进步已经导致在全身麻醉(GA)下基于图像的丘脑下核靶向,这种方法在局部麻醉和清醒镇静(CS)下提供不必要的微电极记录和刺激试验。我们的目的是比较与每种麻醉方法相关的程序和事件。方法:回顾性描述性比较CS和g下的深部脑刺激。我们收集了患者和手术数据(例如合并症、气道困难标准、术中监测、手术持续时间、住院和运动结果),并回顾了术中和术后血流动力学、神经学和手术相关事件。结果:共分析78例手术,其中CS组36例(47.4%),GA组42例(52.6%)。三分之一的患者为女性,中位年龄为62岁(范围33-75岁)。总共有23例患者经历了至少一次围手术期事件,CS组19例(24.4%),GA组4例(5.1%)(p结论:GA下深部脑刺激与围手术期事件减少、手术时间缩短和住院时间缩短相关。编辑评论:对标准药物治疗难治性帕金森病患者可能受益于植入深部脑刺激电极。在本报告中,与清醒镇静下术中电极记录和刺激引导下的电极植入相比,全麻下成像引导下的电极植入与更少的不良围手术期事件和更短的手术时间相关。由于成像引导植入和刺激引导植入对运动功能具有同等的长期益处,目前的研究结果表明,全身麻醉和成像引导植入代表了这些患者整体质量的提高。
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
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
9.50%
发文量
157
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica publishes papers on original work in the fields of anaesthesiology, intensive care, pain, emergency medicine, and subjects related to their basic sciences, on condition that they are contributed exclusively to this Journal. Case reports and short communications may be considered for publication if of particular interest; also letters to the Editor, especially if related to already published material. The editorial board is free to discuss the publication of reviews on current topics, the choice of which, however, is the prerogative of the board. Every effort will be made by the Editors and selected experts to expedite a critical review of manuscripts in order to ensure rapid publication of papers of a high scientific standard.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信