Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 10, 2025
Targeting Neuronal Fiber Tracts for Deep Brain Stimulation Therapy Using Interactive, Patient-Specific Models
Published on: August 12, 2018
Bilateral deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus: Targeting differences between the first and second side
Filipa de Oliveira1, Rui Vaz1, Clara Chamadoira1
1Department of Neurosurgery, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de São João, Porto, Portugal; Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Portugal; Movement Disorders and Functional Neurosurgery Unit, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de São João, Porto, Portugal.
Introduction And Objectives:
Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the subthalamic nucleus (STN) is a recognized treatment for drug-refractory Parkinson's disease (PD). However, the therapeutic success depends on the accuracy of targeting. This study aimed to evaluate potential accuracy differences in the placement of the first and second electrodes implanted, by comparing chosen electrode trajectories, STN activity detected during microelectrode recording (MER), and the mismatch between the initially planned and final electrode positions on each side.
Materials And Methods:
In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed data from 30 patients who underwent one-stage bilateral DBS. For most patients, three arrays of microelectrodes were used to determine the physiological location of the STN. Final target location depended also on the results of intraoperative stimulation. The choice of central versus non-central channels was compared. The Euclidean vector deviation was calculated using the initially planned coordinates and the final position of the tip of the electrode according to a CT scan taken at least a month after the surgery.
Results:
The central channel was chosen in 70% of cases on the first side and 40% of cases on the second side. The mean length of high-quality STN activity recorded in the central channel was longer on the first side than the second (3.07±1.85mm vs. 2.75±1.94mm), while in the anterior channel there were better MER recordings on the second side (1.59±2.07mm on the first side vs. 2.78±2.14mm on the second). Regarding the mismatch between planned versus final electrode position, electrodes on the first side were placed on average 0.178±0.917mm lateral, 0.126±1.10mm posterior and 1.48±1.64mm inferior to the planned target, while the electrodes placed on the second side were 0.251±1.08mm medial, 0.355±1.29mm anterior and 2.26±1.47mm inferior to the planned target.
Conclusion:
There was a tendency for the anterior trajectory to be chosen more frequently than the central on the second side. There was also a statistically significant deviation of the second electrodes in the anterior and inferior directions, when compared to the electrodes on the first side, suggesting that another cause other than brain shift may be responsible. We should therefore factor this during planning for the second implanted side. It might be useful to plan the second side more anteriorly, possibly reducing the number of MER trajectories tested and the duration of surgery.
