揭示脑深部刺激后铅周水肿的模式:临床和人口因素的回顾性回顾。

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Coplen Johnson, Garret Miller, Shivam Shah, Christopher Stevens, Nicholas Thomas, Jamie Toms, Octavio Arevalo
{"title":"揭示脑深部刺激后铅周水肿的模式:临床和人口因素的回顾性回顾。","authors":"Coplen Johnson, Garret Miller, Shivam Shah, Christopher Stevens, Nicholas Thomas, Jamie Toms, Octavio Arevalo","doi":"10.1007/s00234-025-03607-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Postoperative peri-lead edema (PLE) is an increasingly recognized complication of deep brain stimulation (DBS), a therapeutic intervention commonly used for neurological conditions such as Parkinson's disease (PD), essential tremor (ET), intractable focal epilepsy, and dystonia. In this study, we conducted a retrospective chart review to evaluate the incidence of PLE and explore potential clinical and demographic risk factors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A single physician performed DBS electrode placements. To check for complications, postoperative computed tomography (CT) scans were conducted on the day of surgery and approximately 12-15 days afterward. Data on age, gender, complications, edema size, electrode laterality, lead target, lead brand, indication, and use of robotic assistance versus Starfix were collected and analyzed statistically.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>133 leads were implanted in 63 patients, with peri-lead edema (PLE) observed in 65 electrodes (48.87%). Minor postoperative complications, such as subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) and subdural hematoma (SDH), were noted in some patients. A few cases of severe PLE were recorded, with the most significant volume of edema reaching 85.11 cm³. No statistically significant differences were found between PLE-positive and PLE-negative patients based on age, sex, lead target, indication, or robotic assistance versus Starfix. However, the use of Boston Scientific electrodes was significantly associated with PLE, with a p-value of 0.047. A logistic regression model (p = 0.013, R² = 0.219) correctly classified 63.2% of cases, with no significant predictors of PLE, but imaging complications (p = 0.057) and electrode brand (p = 0.086) approached significance, with Boston Scientific electrodes linked to higher PLE risk compared to Abbott electrodes (p = 0.027, OR = 3.729).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PLE appears more prevalent than previously reported and generally presents with delayed onset post-surgery. This retrospective analysis identified the use of Boston Scientific electrodes as a potential risk factor for PLE. Further research, particularly more extensive studies, is necessary to clarify the underlying mechanisms of PLE, improve prevention strategies, and enhance our understanding of this complication.</p>","PeriodicalId":19422,"journal":{"name":"Neuroradiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Unveiling patterns of peri-lead edema after deep brain stimulation: a retrospective review of clinical and demographic factors.\",\"authors\":\"Coplen Johnson, Garret Miller, Shivam Shah, Christopher Stevens, Nicholas Thomas, Jamie Toms, Octavio Arevalo\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00234-025-03607-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Postoperative peri-lead edema (PLE) is an increasingly recognized complication of deep brain stimulation (DBS), a therapeutic intervention commonly used for neurological conditions such as Parkinson's disease (PD), essential tremor (ET), intractable focal epilepsy, and dystonia. In this study, we conducted a retrospective chart review to evaluate the incidence of PLE and explore potential clinical and demographic risk factors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A single physician performed DBS electrode placements. To check for complications, postoperative computed tomography (CT) scans were conducted on the day of surgery and approximately 12-15 days afterward. Data on age, gender, complications, edema size, electrode laterality, lead target, lead brand, indication, and use of robotic assistance versus Starfix were collected and analyzed statistically.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>133 leads were implanted in 63 patients, with peri-lead edema (PLE) observed in 65 electrodes (48.87%). Minor postoperative complications, such as subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) and subdural hematoma (SDH), were noted in some patients. A few cases of severe PLE were recorded, with the most significant volume of edema reaching 85.11 cm³. No statistically significant differences were found between PLE-positive and PLE-negative patients based on age, sex, lead target, indication, or robotic assistance versus Starfix. However, the use of Boston Scientific electrodes was significantly associated with PLE, with a p-value of 0.047. A logistic regression model (p = 0.013, R² = 0.219) correctly classified 63.2% of cases, with no significant predictors of PLE, but imaging complications (p = 0.057) and electrode brand (p = 0.086) approached significance, with Boston Scientific electrodes linked to higher PLE risk compared to Abbott electrodes (p = 0.027, OR = 3.729).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PLE appears more prevalent than previously reported and generally presents with delayed onset post-surgery. This retrospective analysis identified the use of Boston Scientific electrodes as a potential risk factor for PLE. Further research, particularly more extensive studies, is necessary to clarify the underlying mechanisms of PLE, improve prevention strategies, and enhance our understanding of this complication.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19422,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neuroradiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neuroradiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-025-03607-z\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuroradiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-025-03607-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:术后铅周水肿(PLE)是脑深部电刺激(DBS)的一种越来越被认可的并发症,DBS是一种常用的神经系统疾病治疗干预措施,如帕金森病(PD)、特发性震颤(ET)、难治性局灶性癫痫和肌张力障碍。在这项研究中,我们进行了回顾性的图表回顾,以评估PLE的发病率,并探讨潜在的临床和人口危险因素。方法:由一名医生进行DBS电极放置。为了检查并发症,术后计算机断层扫描(CT)在手术当天和大约12-15天后进行。收集年龄、性别、并发症、水肿大小、电极偏侧性、导联靶、导联品牌、适应症以及机器人辅助与Starfix的使用数据并进行统计分析。结果:63例患者共植入133根导联,65根电极出现铅周水肿(PLE),占48.87%。部分患者术后出现蛛网膜下腔出血(SAH)和硬膜下血肿(SDH)等轻微并发症。重度PLE例数较少,最显著水肿量达85.11 cm³。在年龄、性别、导联靶点、适应症或机器人辅助与Starfix的对比中,没有统计学上的显著差异。然而,使用波士顿科学电极与PLE显著相关,p值为0.047。逻辑回归模型(p = 0.013, R²= 0.219)正确分类了63.2%的病例,没有显著的PLE预测因素,但影像学并发症(p = 0.057)和电极品牌(p = 0.086)接近显著性,与Abbott电极相比,Boston Scientific电极与更高的PLE风险相关(p = 0.027, OR = 3.729)。结论:PLE似乎比以前报道的更为普遍,并且通常表现为术后延迟发作。本回顾性分析确定使用波士顿科学电极是PLE的潜在危险因素。进一步的研究,特别是更广泛的研究,有必要澄清PLE的潜在机制,改进预防策略,并加强我们对这一并发症的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Unveiling patterns of peri-lead edema after deep brain stimulation: a retrospective review of clinical and demographic factors.

Objective: Postoperative peri-lead edema (PLE) is an increasingly recognized complication of deep brain stimulation (DBS), a therapeutic intervention commonly used for neurological conditions such as Parkinson's disease (PD), essential tremor (ET), intractable focal epilepsy, and dystonia. In this study, we conducted a retrospective chart review to evaluate the incidence of PLE and explore potential clinical and demographic risk factors.

Methods: A single physician performed DBS electrode placements. To check for complications, postoperative computed tomography (CT) scans were conducted on the day of surgery and approximately 12-15 days afterward. Data on age, gender, complications, edema size, electrode laterality, lead target, lead brand, indication, and use of robotic assistance versus Starfix were collected and analyzed statistically.

Results: 133 leads were implanted in 63 patients, with peri-lead edema (PLE) observed in 65 electrodes (48.87%). Minor postoperative complications, such as subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) and subdural hematoma (SDH), were noted in some patients. A few cases of severe PLE were recorded, with the most significant volume of edema reaching 85.11 cm³. No statistically significant differences were found between PLE-positive and PLE-negative patients based on age, sex, lead target, indication, or robotic assistance versus Starfix. However, the use of Boston Scientific electrodes was significantly associated with PLE, with a p-value of 0.047. A logistic regression model (p = 0.013, R² = 0.219) correctly classified 63.2% of cases, with no significant predictors of PLE, but imaging complications (p = 0.057) and electrode brand (p = 0.086) approached significance, with Boston Scientific electrodes linked to higher PLE risk compared to Abbott electrodes (p = 0.027, OR = 3.729).

Conclusions: PLE appears more prevalent than previously reported and generally presents with delayed onset post-surgery. This retrospective analysis identified the use of Boston Scientific electrodes as a potential risk factor for PLE. Further research, particularly more extensive studies, is necessary to clarify the underlying mechanisms of PLE, improve prevention strategies, and enhance our understanding of this complication.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Neuroradiology
Neuroradiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.60%
发文量
214
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Neuroradiology aims to provide state-of-the-art medical and scientific information in the fields of Neuroradiology, Neurosciences, Neurology, Psychiatry, Neurosurgery, and related medical specialities. Neuroradiology as the official Journal of the European Society of Neuroradiology receives submissions from all parts of the world and publishes peer-reviewed original research, comprehensive reviews, educational papers, opinion papers, and short reports on exceptional clinical observations and new technical developments in the field of Neuroimaging and Neurointervention. The journal has subsections for Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Advanced Neuroimaging, Paediatric Neuroradiology, Head-Neck-ENT Radiology, Spine Neuroradiology, and for submissions from Japan. Neuroradiology aims to provide new knowledge about and insights into the function and pathology of the human nervous system that may help to better diagnose and treat nervous system diseases. Neuroradiology is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and follows the COPE core practices. Neuroradiology prefers articles that are free of bias, self-critical regarding limitations, transparent and clear in describing study participants, methods, and statistics, and short in presenting results. Before peer-review all submissions are automatically checked by iThenticate to assess for potential overlap in prior publication.
×
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