Cargando…

Electric Field Comparison between Microelectrode Recording and Deep Brain Stimulation Systems—A Simulation Study

The success of deep brain stimulation (DBS) relies primarily on the localization of the implanted electrode. Its final position can be chosen based on the results of intraoperative microelectrode recording (MER) and stimulation tests. The optimal position often differs from the final one selected fo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Alonso, Fabiola, Vogel, Dorian, Johansson, Johannes, Wårdell, Karin, Hemm, Simone
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5836047/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29415442
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/brainsci8020028
_version_ 1783303901402890240
author Alonso, Fabiola
Vogel, Dorian
Johansson, Johannes
Wårdell, Karin
Hemm, Simone
author_facet Alonso, Fabiola
Vogel, Dorian
Johansson, Johannes
Wårdell, Karin
Hemm, Simone
author_sort Alonso, Fabiola
collection PubMed
description The success of deep brain stimulation (DBS) relies primarily on the localization of the implanted electrode. Its final position can be chosen based on the results of intraoperative microelectrode recording (MER) and stimulation tests. The optimal position often differs from the final one selected for chronic stimulation with the DBS electrode. The aim of the study was to investigate, using finite element method (FEM) modeling and simulations, whether lead design, electrical setup, and operating modes induce differences in electric field (EF) distribution and in consequence, the clinical outcome. Finite element models of a MER system and a chronic DBS lead were developed. Simulations of the EF were performed for homogenous and patient-specific brain models to evaluate the influence of grounding (guide tube vs. stimulator case), parallel MER leads, and non-active DBS contacts. Results showed that the EF is deformed depending on the distance between the guide tube and stimulating contact. Several parallel MER leads and the presence of the non-active DBS contacts influence the EF distribution. The DBS EF volume can cover the intraoperatively produced EF, but can also extend to other anatomical areas. In conclusion, EF deformations between stimulation tests and DBS should be taken into consideration as they can alter the clinical outcome.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5836047
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58360472018-03-07 Electric Field Comparison between Microelectrode Recording and Deep Brain Stimulation Systems—A Simulation Study Alonso, Fabiola Vogel, Dorian Johansson, Johannes Wårdell, Karin Hemm, Simone Brain Sci Article The success of deep brain stimulation (DBS) relies primarily on the localization of the implanted electrode. Its final position can be chosen based on the results of intraoperative microelectrode recording (MER) and stimulation tests. The optimal position often differs from the final one selected for chronic stimulation with the DBS electrode. The aim of the study was to investigate, using finite element method (FEM) modeling and simulations, whether lead design, electrical setup, and operating modes induce differences in electric field (EF) distribution and in consequence, the clinical outcome. Finite element models of a MER system and a chronic DBS lead were developed. Simulations of the EF were performed for homogenous and patient-specific brain models to evaluate the influence of grounding (guide tube vs. stimulator case), parallel MER leads, and non-active DBS contacts. Results showed that the EF is deformed depending on the distance between the guide tube and stimulating contact. Several parallel MER leads and the presence of the non-active DBS contacts influence the EF distribution. The DBS EF volume can cover the intraoperatively produced EF, but can also extend to other anatomical areas. In conclusion, EF deformations between stimulation tests and DBS should be taken into consideration as they can alter the clinical outcome. MDPI 2018-02-06 /pmc/articles/PMC5836047/ /pubmed/29415442 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/brainsci8020028 Text en © 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Alonso, Fabiola
Vogel, Dorian
Johansson, Johannes
Wårdell, Karin
Hemm, Simone
Electric Field Comparison between Microelectrode Recording and Deep Brain Stimulation Systems—A Simulation Study
title Electric Field Comparison between Microelectrode Recording and Deep Brain Stimulation Systems—A Simulation Study
title_full Electric Field Comparison between Microelectrode Recording and Deep Brain Stimulation Systems—A Simulation Study
title_fullStr Electric Field Comparison between Microelectrode Recording and Deep Brain Stimulation Systems—A Simulation Study
title_full_unstemmed Electric Field Comparison between Microelectrode Recording and Deep Brain Stimulation Systems—A Simulation Study
title_short Electric Field Comparison between Microelectrode Recording and Deep Brain Stimulation Systems—A Simulation Study
title_sort electric field comparison between microelectrode recording and deep brain stimulation systems—a simulation study
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5836047/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29415442
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/brainsci8020028
work_keys_str_mv AT alonsofabiola electricfieldcomparisonbetweenmicroelectroderecordinganddeepbrainstimulationsystemsasimulationstudy
AT vogeldorian electricfieldcomparisonbetweenmicroelectroderecordinganddeepbrainstimulationsystemsasimulationstudy
AT johanssonjohannes electricfieldcomparisonbetweenmicroelectroderecordinganddeepbrainstimulationsystemsasimulationstudy
AT wardellkarin electricfieldcomparisonbetweenmicroelectroderecordinganddeepbrainstimulationsystemsasimulationstudy
AT hemmsimone electricfieldcomparisonbetweenmicroelectroderecordinganddeepbrainstimulationsystemsasimulationstudy