ABSTRACT
Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has become an integral component of Parkinson disease treatment. Programming a DBS device is a time‐consuming process and requires a highly trained specialist to obtain optimal results. During the last few years, we have witnessed a rapid technological advance of DBS systems, making the programming process even more complex and emphasizing the need for a structured approach. In this manuscript and the attached videos, we will demonstrate a step‐by‐step programming approach for DBS targeting the subthalamus and the globus pallidus pars Interna. In doing so we will show the main features and differences of the three main systems available on the market, including the newest ones able to record braingenerated local field potentials for clinical applications.
Keywords: deep brain stimulation, directional, initial programming, local field potentials, Parkinson disease
Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a well‐established treatment for Parkinson disease (PD). There are two main targets that have been shown to improve PD‐related cardinal symptoms: subthalamic nucleus (STN) and globus pallidus pars interna, while ventral intermediate nucleus of the thalamus is beneficial for tremor only.
DBS programming requires specialized, highly trained specialists and it is a complex process taking place over period of a few month. 1 , 2 Although practices vary among institutions, initial programming is usually conducted a few weeks after the surgery when the “microlesional effect” is resolved.
Prior to initiating programming, checking electrode placement on the post‐operative images can exclude complications and envisage potential side effects. Next, checking the contact impedance is warranted to establish the integrity of implanted hardware. Then, the therapeutic window is established in monopolar configuration by increasing the amplitude for each contact (or “level”) while keeping the pulse width (60 μsec) and frequency (130 Hz) constant. Rigidity is the most useful symptoms to assess during the programming as it does not fluctuate and readily changes with amplitude manipulation (Video 1). Finally, the contact with the widest therapeutic window is chosen for chronic stimulation usually starting at 1–1.5 mA. After initiating chronic stimulation, it is recommended to assess patient's axial symptoms as well as development of bothersome dyskinesia after taking antiparkinsonian medications. Stimulation will be gradually increased over the following 4–6 weeks while reducing medications, usually possible with STN (Video 2).
Video 1.
Basic principles and initial steps of Deep Brain stimulation programming for Parkinson's disease.
Video 2.
Overview of Deep Brain Stimulation optimization after the initial programming for Parkinson's disease.
During the last few years, there been a rapid technological advance in the DBS systems providing the clinicians with additional, more flexible programming strategies (Fig. 1, Table 1). 3 , 4 These advances have come with a price: programming has become even more complex, 5 emphasizing even more the need for a structured approach (Table 2).
FIG. 1.
(A) Common electrode configurations. In unipolar configuration the implantable pulse generator (IPG) serves as an anode while one of the contacts is the cathode. In bipolar configuration both the cathode and the anode are located on the electrode. In double unipolar configuration two or more contacts on the electrode set as a cathode. Interleaving or multi set stim configuration allows activation of two separate programs in an alternating fashion through a single electrode. (B) Special configurations of stimulation. Virtual contact allows to shift the center of stimulation between contacts. Anodal block can be used on a directional lead with placing one or two cathodes and one anode on the same stimulation level allowing shift of the stimulation toward the cathode contacts. In anodic stimulation the IPG serves as a cathode and one or more contact set as an anode. In semi‐bipolar stimulation the anode is divided between the IPG and another contact on the electrode. (C) Contacts nomenclature. Note the different nomenclature used to identify the contacts on the different electrodes available on the market.
TABLE 1.
Technical features of currently used IPGs
System | No. of channels | Vol. (cm2) | RC | Output | Freq. range (Hz) | Indep. Freq. | PW (μs) | Temporal fractionation | Current fractionation | Directional lead | MRI safety | Remote progr. | Brain Sensing |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Abbott (St. Jude Medical) Infinity | |||||||||||||
5 | 2 | 30.4 | No | mA | 2–240 | Yes a | 20–500 | MSS | CA | Yes | C | No b | No |
7 | 2 | 38.6 | No | mA | 2–240 | Yes a | 20–500 | MSS | CA | Yes | C | No b | No |
Boston Scientific Vercise | |||||||||||||
PC | 2 | 33.0 | No | mA | 2–255 | Yes | 20–450 | A | MICC | Yes | U | No | No |
RC | 2 | 22.7 | Yes | mA | 2–255 | Yes | 20–450 | A | MICC | No | U | No | No |
Gevia | 2 | 19.8 | Yes | mA | 2–255 | Yes | 20–450 | A | MICC | Yes | C | No | No |
Genus P16 | 2 | 34.9 | No | mA | 2–255 | Yes | 20–450 | A | MICC | Yes | C | No | No |
Genus R16 | 2 | 20.1 | Yes | mA | 2–255 | Yes | 20–450 | A | MICC | Yes | C | No | No |
Medtronic | |||||||||||||
Activa SC | 1 | 27.0 | No | V/mA | 3–250 | No | 60–450 | IL | No | No | C | No | No |
Activa PC | 2 | 37.0 | No | V/mA | 2–250 | No | 60–450 | IL | No | No | C | No | No |
Activa RC | 2 | 22.0 | Yes | V/mA | 2–250 | No | 60–450 | IL | No | No | C | No | No |
Percept PC | 2 | 33.0 | No | mA | 2–250 | No | 20–450 | IL | No | No | C | No | Yes |
Abbreviations: A, Areas; C, conditional; CA, coactivation; Freq, frequency; IL, interleaving; indep, independent; IPG, implantable pulse generator; MICC, multiple independent current control; MSS, multi system set; PC, primary cell; prog, programming; PW, pulse width; RC, rechargeable; U, unsafe; Vol, volume (modified from 3).
Only between leads/hemispheres.
Under investigation.
TABLE 2.
Step‐by‐step programming of STN and GPi DBS for PD as detailed in the accompanying video
1 |
|
2 |
|
3 |
|
4 |
|
5 |
|
6 |
|
7 |
In case of directional DBS:
|
8 |
LFP‐guided approach using the “Brain Survey” of Percept IPG (Medtronic):
|
9 |
|
10 |
|
11 |
|
12 |
LFP‐based PD diary using the “events” function of Percept IPG (Medtronic):
|
Abbreviations: CT, computer tomography, DBS, deep brain stimulation, GPi, globus pallidus pars interna, IPG, implantable pulse generator, LFP, local field potentials, MRI, magnetic resonance imaging, PD, Parkinson disease, STN, subthalamic nucleus, UPDRS, Unified PD Rating Scale, VTA, volume of tissue activated.
Author Roles
(1) Research project: A. Conception, B. Organization, C. Execution; (2) Statistical Analysis: A. Design, B. Execution, C. Review and Critique; (3) Manuscript: A. Writing of the first draft, B. Review and Critique.
C.G.: 1C,3A
A.F.: 1A, 1B, 3B
Disclosures
Ethical Compliance and Statement
The authors confirm that the approval of institutional review board was not required for this work. Informed consent was separately obtained for all videotapes taken. We confirm that we have read the Journal's position on issues involved in ethical publication and affirm that this work is consistent with those guidelines.
Funding Sources and Conflicts of Interest
This study was funded by the University of Toronto and University health Network Chair in Neuromodulation and Multidisciplinary Care to AF. AF received honoraria and research support and honoraria from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Brainlab, Ceregate, Inbrain and Medtronic.
Financial Disclosures for Previous 12 Months
CG has nothing to disclose. Dr. Alfonso Fasano received honoraria and/or research support from: Abbott, Abbvie, American Academy of Neurology, Apple, Brainlab, Boston Scientific, Huawei, Inbrain, International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society, Ipsen, Medtronic, Paladin Lab, Springer, Sunovion, UCB pharma, University of Toronto.
Acknowledgments
Authors are grateful to Paula Azevedo, MD, MSc and Sara Breitbart, NP for their assistance during the programming process.
References
- 1. Picillo M, Lozano AM, Kou N, Puppi Munhoz R, Fasano A. Programming deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease: the Toronto Western hospital algorithms. Brain Stimul 2016;9:425–437. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Aubignat M, Lefranc M, Tir M, Krystkowiak P. Deep brain stimulation programming in Parkinson's disease: introduction of current issues and perspectives. Rev Neurol (Paris) 2020;176:770–779. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Paff M, Loh A, Sarica C, Lozano AM, Fasano A. Update on current technologies for deep brain stimulation in parkinson's disease. J Mov Disord 2020;13:185–198. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Krauss JK, Lipsman N, Aziz T, et al. Technology of deep brain stimulation: Current status and future directions. Nat Rev Neurol 2021;17:75–87. 10.1038/s41582-020-00426-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Soh D, Ten Brinke TR, Lozano AM, Fasano A. Novel deep brain stimulation Technologies for Parkinson's disease: more expectations, more frustrations? Mov Disord Clin Pract 2019;7:113–114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]