Nana Tchantchaleishvili, Tariel Natsvaladze, Andrii Netliukh, Zhangjie Su, Mario Ganau
{"title":"Adaptive versus conventional deep brain stimulation for bradykinesia in Parkinson's disease: a comparative effectiveness analysis.","authors":"Nana Tchantchaleishvili, Tariel Natsvaladze, Andrii Netliukh, Zhangjie Su, Mario Ganau","doi":"10.1007/s13760-026-03192-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Conventional deep brain stimulation (cDBS) is an established treatment for motor complications in Parkinson's disease, whereas adaptive deep brain stimulation (aDBS) adjusts stimulation in response to physiological or behavioral feedback. This review examines whether aDBS provides clinically meaningful advantages over cDBS for bradykinesia and akinesia, while also considering stimulation delivery, adverse effects, and non-motor outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A structured narrative review of relevant literature was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, citation tracking, and focused searches. Evidence was grouped by comparison paradigm, adaptive control strategy, and outcome.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The clinical evidence consists mainly of proof-of-concept investigations, brief crossover studies, feasibility studies, and small cohorts. Selected short-term comparisons generally did not detect a motor-outcome difference from cDBS, but most were underpowered for equivalence or non-inferiority. Several beta-guided paradigms reduced stimulation time or energy delivery, but this was not universal and cannot be assumed to indicate better symptom control, fewer adverse effects, or longer device life. No adequately powered large-scale randomized trial has demonstrated the clinical superiority of aDBS over optimized cDBS. Evidence concerning gait, speech, cognition, mood, and other neuropsychiatric outcomes remains limited. Interpretation is further restricted by differences in patient selection, stimulation targets, biomarkers, adaptive algorithms, medication states, outcome measures, follow-up, and timing after implantation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Adaptive DBS is technically feasible and offers a promising approach to individualized stimulation, but its comparative clinical value remains uncertain. Larger randomized trials with standardized outcomes and long-term follow-up are needed before superiority over conventional stimulation can be established.</p>","PeriodicalId":7042,"journal":{"name":"Acta neurologica Belgica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta neurologica Belgica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13760-026-03192-9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Conventional deep brain stimulation (cDBS) is an established treatment for motor complications in Parkinson's disease, whereas adaptive deep brain stimulation (aDBS) adjusts stimulation in response to physiological or behavioral feedback. This review examines whether aDBS provides clinically meaningful advantages over cDBS for bradykinesia and akinesia, while also considering stimulation delivery, adverse effects, and non-motor outcomes.
Methods: A structured narrative review of relevant literature was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, citation tracking, and focused searches. Evidence was grouped by comparison paradigm, adaptive control strategy, and outcome.
Results: The clinical evidence consists mainly of proof-of-concept investigations, brief crossover studies, feasibility studies, and small cohorts. Selected short-term comparisons generally did not detect a motor-outcome difference from cDBS, but most were underpowered for equivalence or non-inferiority. Several beta-guided paradigms reduced stimulation time or energy delivery, but this was not universal and cannot be assumed to indicate better symptom control, fewer adverse effects, or longer device life. No adequately powered large-scale randomized trial has demonstrated the clinical superiority of aDBS over optimized cDBS. Evidence concerning gait, speech, cognition, mood, and other neuropsychiatric outcomes remains limited. Interpretation is further restricted by differences in patient selection, stimulation targets, biomarkers, adaptive algorithms, medication states, outcome measures, follow-up, and timing after implantation.
Conclusions: Adaptive DBS is technically feasible and offers a promising approach to individualized stimulation, but its comparative clinical value remains uncertain. Larger randomized trials with standardized outcomes and long-term follow-up are needed before superiority over conventional stimulation can be established.
背景:常规脑深部刺激(cDBS)是帕金森病运动并发症的治疗方法,而适应性脑深部刺激(aDBS)根据生理或行为反馈调整刺激。本综述探讨了aDBS在治疗运动迟缓和运动障碍方面是否比cDBS具有临床意义的优势,同时也考虑了刺激递送、不良反应和非运动预后。方法:使用PubMed/MEDLINE、Scopus、Web of Science、引文跟踪和重点搜索对相关文献进行结构化的叙述性综述。证据按比较范式、自适应控制策略和结果分组。结果:临床证据主要包括概念验证研究、简短交叉研究、可行性研究和小队列研究。选择的短期比较通常没有检测到与cDBS的运动结局差异,但大多数在等效性或非劣效性方面的能力不足。一些β引导的范例减少了刺激时间或能量传递,但这不是普遍的,不能假设这表明更好的症状控制,更少的不良反应,或更长的设备寿命。没有足够有力的大规模随机试验证明aDBS优于优化的cDBS。有关步态、言语、认知、情绪和其他神经精神预后的证据仍然有限。患者选择、刺激靶点、生物标志物、自适应算法、药物状态、结果测量、随访和植入后时间的差异进一步限制了解释。结论:适应性DBS在技术上是可行的,为个体化刺激提供了一种很有前景的方法,但其比较临床价值仍不确定。在确定其优于常规刺激之前,需要进行具有标准化结果和长期随访的大型随机试验。
期刊介绍:
Peer-reviewed and published quarterly, Acta Neurologica Belgicapresents original articles in the clinical and basic neurosciences, and also reports the proceedings and the abstracts of the scientific meetings of the different partner societies. The contents include commentaries, editorials, review articles, case reports, neuro-images of interest, book reviews and letters to the editor.
Acta Neurologica Belgica is the official journal of the following national societies:
Belgian Neurological Society
Belgian Society for Neuroscience
Belgian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology
Belgian Pediatric Neurology Society
Belgian Study Group of Multiple Sclerosis
Belgian Stroke Council
Belgian Headache Society
Belgian Study Group of Neuropathology