Display options
Cite
Almeida L, Rawal PV, Ditty B, et al. Deep Brain Stimulation Battery Longevity: Comparison of Monopolar Versus Bipolar Stimulation Modes. Mov Disord Clin Pract. 2016;3(4):359-366doi: 10.1002/mdc3.12285.
Almeida, L., Rawal, P. V., Ditty, B., Smelser, B. L., Huang, H., Okun, M. S., Guthrie, B. L., & Walker, H. C. (2016). Deep Brain Stimulation Battery Longevity: Comparison of Monopolar Versus Bipolar Stimulation Modes. Movement disorders clinical practice, 3(4), 359-366. https://doi.org/10.1002/mdc3.12285
Almeida, Leonardo, et al. "Deep Brain Stimulation Battery Longevity: Comparison of Monopolar Versus Bipolar Stimulation Modes." Movement disorders clinical practice vol. 3,4 (2016): 359-366. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/mdc3.12285
Almeida L, Rawal PV, Ditty B, Smelser BL, Huang H, Okun MS, Guthrie BL, Walker HC. Deep Brain Stimulation Battery Longevity: Comparison of Monopolar Versus Bipolar Stimulation Modes. Mov Disord Clin Pract. 2016 Jul-Aug;3(4):359-366. doi: 10.1002/mdc3.12285. Epub 2016 Jan 09. PMID: 27617270; PMCID: PMC5015697.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Mov Disord Clin Pract. 2016 Jul-Aug;3(4):359-366. doi: 10.1002/mdc3.12285. Epub 2016 Jan 09.

Deep Brain Stimulation Battery Longevity: Comparison of Monopolar Versus Bipolar Stimulation Modes.

Movement disorders clinical practice

Leonardo Almeida, Pawan V Rawal, Benjamin Ditty, Bryan L Smelser, He Huang, Michael S Okun, Barton L Guthrie, Harrison C Walker

Affiliations

  1. University of Florida, Center for Movement Disorders and Neurorestoration.
  2. University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Neurology.
  3. University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Neurosurgery.
  4. University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Neurology; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Biomedical Engineering.

PMID: 27617270 PMCID: PMC5015697 DOI: 10.1002/mdc3.12285

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Deep brain stimulation is an effective treatment for movement disorders, but it is relatively complex, invasive, and costly. Little is known about whether stimulation mode alters pulse generator (battery) longevity in routine clinical care.

OBJECTIVE: To compare battery longevity during monopolar versus bipolar stimulation in patients who underwent deep brain stimulation for movement disorders.

METHODS: We evaluated 2,902 programming adjustments and calculated the average stimulator settings for 393 batteries in 200 unique patients with Parkinson's disease and essential tremor. We classified the pulse generators into different stimulation modes (monopolar, bipolar, tripolar, double monopolar) and compared battery longevity with Kaplan Meier survival analyses using the log rank test. We exclusively implanted the Medtronic 3387 lead with adjacent electrode contacts separated by 1.5 mm.

RESULTS: The mean pulse generator longevity was 47.6±1.6 months regardless of diagnosis or stimulation mode. Bipolar stimulation mode was associated with greater longevity than monopolar stimulation (56.1±3.4 versus 44.2±2.1 months, p=0.006). This effect was most pronounced when stimulation parameters were at low to moderate intensity settings. Double monopolar configuration was associated with less pulse generator longevity than conventional stimulation modes (37.8±5.6 versus 49.7±1.9, p=0.014).

CONCLUSION: IPGs initially programmed in bipolar mode provided one year of additional battery longevity versus monopolar mode in this large retrospective series of patients with essential tremor and Parkinson's disease. Given satisfactory efficacy for motor symptoms, bipolar stimulation mode is a feasible alternative programming strategy at the initiation of DBS therapy.

Keywords: Deep Brain Stimulation; Motor control; Parkinson’s disease; Tremor

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest related to this research

References

  1. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2009 Nov;15(9):709-11 - PubMed
  2. N Engl J Med. 2006 Nov 9;355(19):1978-90 - PubMed
  3. N Engl J Med. 2010 Jun 3;362(22):2077-91 - PubMed
  4. Mov Disord. 2002;17 Suppl 3:S188-97 - PubMed
  5. N Engl J Med. 2013 Feb 14;368(7):610-22 - PubMed
  6. N Engl J Med. 2000 Feb 17;342(7):461-8 - PubMed
  7. PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e58665 - PubMed
  8. Brain Stimul. 2014 May-Jun;7(3):345-9 - PubMed
  9. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2012 Jan;18(1):63-8 - PubMed
  10. Lancet Neurol. 2013 Jan;12(1):37-44 - PubMed
  11. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2007 May;13(4):240-2 - PubMed
  12. Eur J Neurol. 2011 Jun;18(6):872-5 - PubMed
  13. Neurology. 2012 Jul 3;79(1):55-65 - PubMed
  14. J Neural Eng. 2013 Oct;10(5):056023 - PubMed
  15. Ann Neurol. 2009 May;65(5):586-95 - PubMed
  16. Mov Disord. 2007 Dec;22(16):2436-9 - PubMed
  17. Brain Stimul. 2008 Jan;1(1):7-15 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support