17 research outputs found
Experimental Setup and Tasks.
<p>(A) Participants wore a sensor glove to track their movements. (B) They were seated in front of an inclined computer screen and placed their gloved hand on a board underneath the screen. While performing voluntary finger movements (finger taps), participants receive real-time visual feedback from a simulated virtual hand, displayed on the screen in spatial alignment with their hidden real hand. (C) The figure schematically displays the course of a trial. Participants performed two consecutive experiments. Experiment 1 (E1): After an auditory cue, participants performed a single tap with their index finger (as if pressing a button), which evoked a click sound. Sometimes the onset of the virtual hand’s movement was delayed (feedback about movement or ‘hand’ condition). Sometimes the sound was delayed (‘outcome audio’ condition). Each trial had to be evaluated as self- or other-generated. Experiment 2 (E2): In a visual control version, participants’ taps evoked a color change in a virtual button (‘outcome color’ condition). (D) Thirteen pilot participants evaluated the set-up after a cycle of continuous tapping without delay by rating their agreement on a scale from 1 to 10 (10 = “I absolutely agree”) with respect to three questions related to ownership and agency over the virtual hand.</p
DBS-related neurological and psychiatric adverse events.
<p>DBS-related neurological and psychiatric adverse events.</p
Sum of AEs defined by same severity, reversibility, and attribution to DBS therapy.
<p>Green, reversible; orange, non reversible; grey, unknown. The actual number of AEs is presented. The dotted area indicates AEs that were <i>severe</i> or worse and at least <i>possibly</i> related to DBS therapy and, thus, regarded the most critical. N.B. The number of affected patients may be less than the number indicated because individual patients may have suffered from more than one AE of respective groups (e.g. impairment of gait and speech rated as <i>mild</i>, <i>probably</i> related and <i>non-reversible</i>).</p
Reporting of adverse events in prospective multicentric DBS studies for movement disorders.
<p>Reporting of adverse events in prospective multicentric DBS studies for movement disorders.</p
(Supplement) DBS-related and -unrelated neurological and psychiatric adverse events.
<p>(Supplement) DBS-related and -unrelated neurological and psychiatric adverse events.</p
CTC grade of SAE vs relatedness to DBS therapy.
<p>CTC grade of SAE vs relatedness to DBS therapy.</p
Towards unambiguous reporting of complications related to deep brain stimulation surgery: A retrospective single-center analysis and systematic review of the literature
<div><p>Background and objective</p><p>To determine rates of adverse events (AEs) related to deep brain stimulation (DBS) surgery or implanted devices from a large series from a single institution. Sound comparisons with the literature require the definition of unambiguous categories, since there is no consensus on the reporting of such AEs.</p><p>Patients and methods</p><p>123 consecutive patients (median age 63 yrs; female 45.5%) treated with DBS in the subthalamic nucleus (78 patients), ventrolateral thalamus (24), internal pallidum (20), and centre médian-parafascicular nucleus (1) were analyzed retrospectively. Both mean and median follow-up time was 4.7 years (578 patient-years). AEs were assessed according to three unambiguous categories: (i) hemorrhages including other intracranial complications because these might lead to neurological deficits or death, (ii) infections and similar AEs necessitating the explantation of hardware components as this results in the interruption of DBS therapy, and (iii) lead revisions for various reasons since this involves an additional intracranial procedure. For a systematic review of the literature AE rates were calculated based on primary data presented in 103 publications. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed with the I<sup>2</sup> statistic and analyzed further by a random effects meta-regression. Publication bias was analyzed with funnel plots.</p><p>Results</p><p>Surgery- or hardware-related AEs (23) affected 18 of 123 patients (14.6%) and resolved without permanent sequelae in all instances. In 2 patients (1.6%), small hemorrhages in the striatum were associated with transient neurological deficits. In 4 patients (3.3%; 0.7% per patient-year) impulse generators were removed due to infection. In 2 patients electrodes were revised (1.6%; 0.3% per patient-year). There was no lead migration or surgical revision because of lead misplacement. Age was not statistically significant different (p>0.05) between patients affected by AEs or not. AE rates did not decline over time and similar incidences were found among all patients (423) implanted with DBS systems at our institution until December 2016. A systematic literature review revealed that exact AE rates could not be determined from many studies, which could not be attributed to study designs. Average rates for intracranial complications were 3.8% among studies (per-study analysis) and 3.4% for pooled analysis of patients from different studies (per-patient analysis). Annual hardware removal rates were 3.6 and 2.4% for per-study and per-patient analysis, respectively, and lead revision rates were 4.1 and 2.6%, respectively. There was significant heterogeneity between studies (I<sup>2</sup> ranged between 77% and 91% for the three categories; p< 0.0001). For hardware removal heterogeneity (I<sup>2</sup> = 87.4%) was reduced by taking study size (p< 0.0001) and publication year (p< 0.01) into account, although a significant degree of heterogeneity remained (I<sup>2</sup> = 80.0%; p< 0.0001). Based on comparisons with health care-related databases there appears to be publication bias with lower rates for hardware-related AEs in published patient cohorts.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>The proposed categories are suited for an unequivocal assessment of AEs even in a retrospective manner and useful for benchmarking. AE rates in the present cohorts from our institution compare favorable with the literature.</p></div
Summary of literature-based rates for adverse events related to DBS surgery and implanted hardware.
<p>Summary of literature-based rates for adverse events related to DBS surgery and implanted hardware.</p
Evaluation of study quality based on questions from common check lists.
<p>Evaluation of study quality based on questions from common check lists.</p