The Modern Utility of Awake Deep Brain Stimulation Surgery.

Bryan T Klassen, Matthew R Baker, Kai J Miller
{"title":"The Modern Utility of Awake Deep Brain Stimulation Surgery.","authors":"Bryan T Klassen, Matthew R Baker, Kai J Miller","doi":"10.1101/2025.09.25.25336654","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Awake deep brain stimulation (DBS) surgery with microelectrode recording (MER) and test stimulation offers real-time physiologic feedback to refine lead placement, but its relevance is increasingly debated in an era of advanced imaging and streamlined asleep workflows.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To describe a contemporary framework for awake DBS with MER and to evaluate whether, in our hands, this approach results in a final lead position different from what we would have achieved with asleep DBS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We outline a standardized workflow combining high-resolution imaging, confirmatory MER, and intraoperative stimulation mapping for an example context of thalamic targeting for essential tremor. To quantify the impact of the awake approach on surgical decision making, we retrospectively reviewed the first 137 consecutively implanted VIM DBS leads placed (awake) by a single surgeon working with a single intraoperative neurologist. In each case, we recorded whether the final lead was implanted along the planned target, whether it was adjusted in depth along the planned trajectory, or whether it was moved to a parallel track. For the parallel track moves, we compared the final lead position to the initially planned imaging target using co-registered pre- and postoperative imaging.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 137 consecutive leads implanted, 116 were implanted in the planned trajectory, with 49 at the planned depth and 67 at an adjusted depth. Twenty-one of the 137 leads were placed along a parallel trajectory based on intraoperative findings, with seventeen having available imaging for further analysis. Post-operative analysis showed that only 2 of the 17 were moved toward the intended target. The remaining 15 were moved away (13) or equidistant (2) from the intended target.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Feedback from MER and test stimulation in awake DBS cases frequently informs surgical adjustments that deviate from the planned trajectory, often in response to patient-specific physiology not captured by imaging. In the vast majority of our cases, these adjustments would not have been made using an asleep DBS approach, since moves were not made toward the planned target. This indicates that, in our practice, awake surgery results in adjustment of lead position in response to discovered functional anatomy rather than to correct stereotactic inaccuracy. Our findings underscore the continued utility in our practice of awake DBS with MER in tailoring therapy to individual anatomy and functional organization.</p>","PeriodicalId":94281,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12486036/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.09.25.25336654","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Awake deep brain stimulation (DBS) surgery with microelectrode recording (MER) and test stimulation offers real-time physiologic feedback to refine lead placement, but its relevance is increasingly debated in an era of advanced imaging and streamlined asleep workflows.

Objective: To describe a contemporary framework for awake DBS with MER and to evaluate whether, in our hands, this approach results in a final lead position different from what we would have achieved with asleep DBS.

Methods: We outline a standardized workflow combining high-resolution imaging, confirmatory MER, and intraoperative stimulation mapping for an example context of thalamic targeting for essential tremor. To quantify the impact of the awake approach on surgical decision making, we retrospectively reviewed the first 137 consecutively implanted VIM DBS leads placed (awake) by a single surgeon working with a single intraoperative neurologist. In each case, we recorded whether the final lead was implanted along the planned target, whether it was adjusted in depth along the planned trajectory, or whether it was moved to a parallel track. For the parallel track moves, we compared the final lead position to the initially planned imaging target using co-registered pre- and postoperative imaging.

Results: Among 137 consecutive leads implanted, 116 were implanted in the planned trajectory, with 49 at the planned depth and 67 at an adjusted depth. Twenty-one of the 137 leads were placed along a parallel trajectory based on intraoperative findings, with seventeen having available imaging for further analysis. Post-operative analysis showed that only 2 of the 17 were moved toward the intended target. The remaining 15 were moved away (13) or equidistant (2) from the intended target.

Conclusion: Feedback from MER and test stimulation in awake DBS cases frequently informs surgical adjustments that deviate from the planned trajectory, often in response to patient-specific physiology not captured by imaging. In the vast majority of our cases, these adjustments would not have been made using an asleep DBS approach, since moves were not made toward the planned target. This indicates that, in our practice, awake surgery results in adjustment of lead position in response to discovered functional anatomy rather than to correct stereotactic inaccuracy. Our findings underscore the continued utility in our practice of awake DBS with MER in tailoring therapy to individual anatomy and functional organization.

清醒深部脑刺激手术的现代应用。
背景:清醒深度脑刺激(DBS)手术与微电极记录(MER)和测试刺激提供实时生理反馈,以改进导联放置,但在先进成像和简化睡眠工作流程的时代,其相关性越来越受到争议。目的:描述具有MER的清醒DBS的现代框架,并评估在我们手中,这种方法是否会导致最终的领先位置不同于我们在睡眠DBS中所取得的领先位置。方法:我们概述了一个标准化的工作流程,结合高分辨率成像、验证性MER和术中刺激映射,以作为特发性震颤丘脑靶向的例子。为了量化清醒入路对手术决策的影响,我们回顾性地回顾了由一名外科医生和一名术中神经科医生在清醒状态下连续植入的137例VIM DBS导联。在每种情况下,我们都记录了最终的引线是否沿着计划的目标植入,是否沿着计划的轨迹进行深度调整,或者是否移动到平行轨道。对于平行轨迹运动,我们使用共配准的术前和术后成像将最终先导位置与最初计划的成像目标进行了比较。结果:137根导联中,116根导联按计划轨迹植入,49根导联按计划深度植入,67根导联按调整深度植入。137根导线中有21根根据术中发现沿平行轨迹放置,其中17根有可用的影像学资料供进一步分析。术后分析显示,17例中只有2例被移向预定目标。剩下的15个被移到离预定目标很远(13个)或等距离(2个)的地方。结论:在清醒DBS病例中,来自MER和测试刺激的反馈经常提示偏离计划轨迹的手术调整,通常是对患者特异性生理的反应,而不是成像。在我们的绝大多数情况下,这些调整不会使用休眠DBS方法进行,因为没有朝着计划的目标移动。这表明,在我们的实践中,清醒手术的结果是根据发现的功能解剖调整导联位置,而不是纠正立体定向不准确。我们的研究结果强调了在我们的实践中,清醒DBS与MER在根据个体解剖和功能组织定制治疗方面的持续效用。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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