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}
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.
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.