Concerns About Psychiatric Neurosurgery and How They Can Be Overcome: Recommendations for Responsible Research

Background Psychiatric neurosurgery is experiencing a revival. Beside deep brain stimulation (DBS), several ablative neurosurgical procedures are currently in use. Each approach has a different profile of advantages and disadvantages. However, many psychiatrists, ethicists, and laypeople are sceptical about psychiatric neurosurgery. Methods We identify the main concerns against psychiatric neurosurgery, and discuss the extent to which they are justified and how they might be overcome. We review the evidence for the effectiveness, efficacy and safety of each approach, and discuss how this could be improved. We analyse whether and, if so, how randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can be used in the different approaches, and what alternatives are available if conducting RCTs is impossible for practical or ethical reasons. Specifically, we analyse the problem of failed RCTs after promising open-label studies. Results The main concerns are: (i) reservations based on historical psychosurgery, (ii) concerns about personality changes, (iii) concerns regarding localised interventions, and (iv) scepticism due to the lack of scientific evidence. Given the need for effective therapies for treatment-refractory psychiatric disorders and preliminary evidence for the effectiveness of psychiatric neurosurgery, further research is warranted and necessary. Since psychiatric neurosurgery has the potential to modify personality traits, it should be held to the highest ethical and scientific standards. Conclusions Psychiatric neurosurgery procedures with preliminary evidence for efficacy and an acceptable risk–benefit profile include DBS and micro- or radiosurgical anterior capsulotomy for intractable obsessive–compulsive disorder. These methods may be considered for individual treatment attempts, but multi-centre RCTs are necessary to provide reliable evidence

A prospective international multi-center study on safety and efficacy of deep brain stimulation for resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has been proposed for severe, chronic, treatment-refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) patients. Although serious adverse events can occur, only a few studies report on the safety profile of DBS for psychiatric disorders. In a prospective, open-label, interventional multi-center study, we examined the safety and efficacy of electrical stimulation in 30 patients with DBS electrodes bilaterally implanted in the anterior limb of the internal capsule. Safety, efficacy, and functionality assessments were performed at 3, 6, and 12 months post implant. An independent Clinical Events Committee classified and coded all adverse events (AEs) according to EN ISO14155:2011. All patients experienced AEs (195 in total), with the majority of these being mild (52% of all AEs) or moderate (37%). Median time to resolution was 22 days for all AEs and the etiology with the highest AE incidence was 'programming/stimulation' (in 26 patients), followed by 'New illness, injury, condition' (13 patients) and 'pre-existing condition, worsening or exacerbation' (11 patients). Sixteen patients reported a total of 36 serious AEs (eight of them in one single patient), mainly transient anxiety and affective symptoms worsening (20 SAEs). Regarding efficacy measures, Y-BOCS reduction was 42% at 12 months and the responder rate was 60%. Improvements in GAF, CGI, and EuroQol-5D index scores were also observed. In sum, although some severe AEs occurred, most AEs were mild or moderate, transient and related to programming/stimulation and tended to resolve by adjustment of stimulation. In a severely treatment-resistant population, this open-label study supports that the potential benefits outweigh the potential risks of DBS

EEG correlates of impaired self-other integration during joint-task performance in schizophrenia

Deficits in a wide variety of social cognitive processes are well established in schizophrenia. However, research focusing on actual interacting individuals is surprisingly scarce. Problems in low-level processes such as self-other integration may importantly underlie often-reported higher-level deficits. The current study aimed at measuring possible disturbances in self-other integration in schizophrenia using both behavioral and event-related potential (ERP) measures. Sixteen healthy controls and fifteen schizophrenia patients performed a social Simon task in both a joint and an individual setting. Behaviorally, patients showed general slower reaction times, but comparable self-other integration as reflected in the social Simon effect. The ERP results for the healthy controls revealed increased no-go P3 amplitudes in the joint compared with the individual setting. Crucially, patients did not show this increase in no-go P3 amplitude. In line with previous research, the present ERP findings demonstrate that healthy volunteers needed more effort to inhibit their responses in the joint compared with the individual setting. Patients however, showed altered self-other integration when they had to withhold their responses while their co-actor had to act. These outcomes indicate that schizophrenia patients have deficits in low-level processes required for successful joint action