English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objective  Previous studies showed that deep brain stimulation (DBS) relieves pain symptoms in Parkinson disease (PD) patients when programmed for motor-symptom relief. One factor involved in pain processing is sensory perception of stimuli. With the advent of directional leads, we explore whether directional DBS affects quantitative sensory testing (QST) metrics acutely.    Methods  PD patients with subthalamic (STN) DBS and directional leads were tested in 5 settings (DBS-OFF, DBS-ON with omnidirectional stimulation, and DBS-ON) for each of three directional segments of contact used for clinical programming. The Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS-III) assessed patient’s motor skills at time of study visit at clinical contact and at contact which produced optimal sensory threshold (defined by the greatest tolerance to mechanical stimuli). Correlation analyses were performed between stimulation parameters [amplitude, frequency, pulse width (PW), total electrical energy delivered (TEED)] and outcome metrics.    Results  Sensory thresholds were obtained in nine patients. Directional stimulation did not significantly alter patient perceptions of sensory stimulus [cold pain ( p  = 0.69), warm pain ( p  = 0.99), Von frey fibers ( p  = 0.09), pin-prick ( p  = 0.88), vibration ( p  = 0.40), pressure ( p  = 0.98)]. With correlation analysis, increasing PW at the posterior contact increased pin prick and vibration sensitivity ( p  < 0.001). Additionally, an increase in TEED caused a decrease in sensitivity to warm detection when using the anterior ( p  = 0.04), lateral ( p  = 0.02), and medial contacts ( p  = 0.03), and also caused a decrease in sensitivity to cold detection when using the medial contact ( p  = 0.03). UPDRS-III remained stable during testing.    Conclusion  Motor benefit can be acutely maintained at directional contacts, whereas directional stimulation can modulate thermal and mechanical sensitivity. Further investigation will determine whether these changes are maintained chronically or can be improved with optimized programming.

Effect of Directional Deep Brain Stimulation on Sensory Thresholds in Parkinson’s Disease