Journal Article
Systematic Review
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Asleep versus awake GPi DBS surgery for Parkinson's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with Parkinson's Disease (PD) who receive either asleep image-guided subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation (DBS) or the traditional awake technique have comparable motor outcomes. However, there are fewer studies regarding which technique should be chosen for globus pallidus internus (GPi) DBS. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare the accuracy of lead placement and motor outcomes of asleep versus awake GPi DBS PD population.

METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for studies comparing asleep vs. awake GPi DBS lead placement in patients with PD. Outcomes were spatial accuracy of lead placement, measured by radial error between intended and actual location, motor improvement measured using (UPDRS III), and postoperative stimulation parameters. Statistical analysis was performed with Review Manager 5.1.7. and OpenMeta [Analyst].

RESULTS: Three studies met inclusion criteria with a total of 247 patients. Asleep DBS was used to treat 192 (77.7 %) patients. Follow-up ranged from 6 to 48 months. Radial error was not statistically different between groups (MD -0.49 mm; 95 % CI -1.0 to 0.02; I2  = 86 %; p = 0.06), with a tendency for higher target accuracy with the asleep technique. There was no significant difference between groups in change on motor function, as measured by UPDRS III, from pre- to postoperative (MD 8.30 %; 95 % CI -4.78 to 21.37; I2  = 67 %, p = 0.2). There was a significant difference in postoperative stimulation voltage, with the asleep group requiring less voltage than the awake group (MD -0.27 V; 95 % CI -0.46 to - 0.08; I2  = 0 %; p = 0.006).

CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis indicates that asleep image-guided GPi DBS presents a statistical tendency suggesting superior target accuracy when compared with the awake standard technique. Differences in change in motor function were not statistically significant between groups.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app