Skip to content
naulon
Get started

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 21, 2026.

Deep Brain Stimulation Programming for Movement Disorders: Current Concepts and Evidence-Based Strategies

Thomas Koeglsperger, Carla Palleis, Franz Hell and 2 more

Frontiers in Neurology · 2019 · Review · CC BY

doi:10.3389/fneur.2019.00410

Abstract

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has become the treatment of choice for advanced stages of Parkinson's disease, medically intractable essential tremor, and complicated segmental and generalized dystonia. In addition to accurate electrode placement in the target area, effective programming of DBS devices is considered the most important factor for the individual outcome after DBS. Programming of the implanted pulse generator (IPG) is the only modifiable factor once DBS leads have been implanted and it becomes even more relevant in cases in which the electrodes are located at the border of the intended target structure and when side effects become challenging. At present, adjusting stimulation parameters depends to a large extent on personal experience. Based on a comprehensive literature search, we here summarize previous studies that examined the significance of distinct stimulation strategies for ameliorating disease signs and symptoms. We assess the effect of adjusting the stimulus amplitude (A), frequency (f), and pulse width (pw) on clinical symptoms and examine more recent techniques for modulating neuronal elements by electrical stimulation, such as interleaving (Medtronic®) or directional current steering (Boston Scientific®, Abbott®). We thus provide an evidence-based strategy for achieving the best clinical effect with different disorders and avoiding adverse effects in DBS of the subthalamic nucleus (STN), the ventro-intermedius nucleus (VIM), and the globus pallidus internus (GPi).

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 21, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

Introduction

Since the pioneering work of Cooper et al. and of Benabid et al. in the early 1990s, deep brain stimulation (DBS) has become the treatment of choice for advanced stages of Parkinson's disease (PD), for medically intractable essential tremor (ET), and for complicated segmental and generalized dystonia. Although overall considered an effective treatment in these diseases, a number of specific factors determine the treatment success: in addition to careful patient selection and accurate electrode placement, the effective post-operative programming of DBS devices is considered the most important factor for the individual patient outcome. Programming is the only modifiable factor once a patient has been implanted with DBS leads and it becomes even more relevant in cases in which the DBS electrodes are located at the border of the intended target structure. Current implantation techniques, using either stereotaxic frames or surgical robots, exhibit an average precision in the range of 1–2 mm from the target area. In addition, the brain itself can shift by 2–4 mm during surgery, contributing to imprecise lead placement. According to previous studies, such errors occur in up to 40% of DBS surgeries, thus underscoring the importance of post-operative programming to compensate for such variability. Inefficient stimulation may result in unnecessary follow-up visits and reduced patient satisfaction with DBS. Conversely, sound programming has been shown to improve patient outcomes and to avoid unnecessary lead revisions. In addition, improvement with re-programming highlights that proper adjustment of stimulation parameters is a major factor for successful treatment and patient satisfaction.

Despite established strategies for adjusting neurostimulation, DBS programming remains time- and resource-consuming. New leads with two levels of tripartite electrodes (i.e., segmented electrodes) (Abbott®, Boston Scientific®) can improve the therapeutic window (Figures 1A,B) but increase the number of possible combinations of programming parameters [For a thorough review of currently implanted pulse generators (IPGs) and electrodes see:]. Therefore, there is a need for sophisticated strategies on how to adjust stimulation parameters and lead configurations in a precise and effective manner once the electrodes have been implanted. We here review the current evidence for adjusting neurostimulation in different movement disorders. Regarding the biophysical and physiological effects of DBS, the reader is referred to extensive reviews on this matter.

Specific Programming Strategies for DBS of the Subthalamic Nucleus (STN)

It is thought that adjustment of stimulation parameters is best carried out by trained clinicians and depends to a large extent on personal experience, whereas detailed algorithms for a disease-specific programming strategy are rare, with the exception of expert recommendations.

Assessing the Response to DBS:

In order to judge the effect of STN-DBS, rigidity is typically used in PD because it does not fluctuate, responds to stimulation adjustments within seconds (Figure 2A), and does not depend on the patient's fatigue or cooperation. When effective stimulation is switched on, rigidity disappears within 20 s, whereas after cessation of stimulation, rigidity returns within 1 min (Figure 2A). This must be taken into account when subsequent tests are performed. In the absence of rigidity, bradykinesia or (rest) tremor can be used, although the response of bradykinesia to changing the stimulation parameters is slower and may be biased by fatigue and the patient's discomfort or expectations and (rest) tremor may fluctuate spontaneously. Gait speed, arm swing during gait, finger tapping, or alternating hand movements can all be measured with a stopwatch to achieve numeric data to supply evidence for a certain stimulator setting. A list of appropriate tests has been suggested. Also, selected items from the UPDRS-III scale are used to judge the therapeutic effect and to document effects in a systematic manner. It is noteworthy that no single clinical sign or symptom should be used alone (such as e.g., rigidity) to judge the therapeutic effect. Our clinical experience suggests that one should select from a list of possible tests two or three which characterize the symptoms of the patient best and to apply these tests in a systematic manner during the programming sessions. The contact with the lowest threshold for beneficial effects and the widest therapeutic window is then selected for chronic stimulation.

Electrode Configuration Adjustment

It is commonly suggested that once the leads have been implanted, each ring contact should be tested in a monopolar configuration with the electrode as negative (cathode) and the IPG as positive (anode), a process referred to as monopolar review. In some centers, this is done prior to the implantation of the IPG using externalized leads, with the option to adjust the depth of the implanted electrode during the implantation of the IPG. In these cases, stimulation is applied by an external stimulator. Initially, the pulse width and frequency are kept constant at 60 μs and 130 Hz, respectively. Each of the ring electrodes is tested separately with increasing amplitudes to determine the threshold of beneficial effects and, with further increasing the amplitude, to detect the threshold of adverse effects. In the case of segmented electrodes, all segments of one ring are activated simultaneously. Most authors suggest a gradual increase of stimulation amplitude in steps of 0.1–0.5 V or 0.1–0.5 mA up to a maximum of 5 V or 5 mA, or until side effects occur.

When newer DBS leads (Boston Scientific®, Abbott®) with two levels of tripartite electrodes are used, it is suggested that after determination of the clinically most efficient ring, single contacts of this ring are screened in a similar fashion (directional or current steering) (Figures 1A,B). Stimulation of single segments can result in a larger therapeutic window. In addition, the average current threshold for obtaining a therapeutic effect was noted to be lower with the best directional stimulation. In accord, Pollo et al. reported, in their study on intraoperative segmental stimulation, a reduced threshold for clinical efficiency as well as a better clinical efficiency with segmental stimulation. Even with small currents of 0.3 mA, these authors were able to induce clinical effects in individual patients, which suggests that the stepwise increase of current during testing may have to be considerably lower than 0.5 mA. In the VANTAGE study, stimulation was performed with the Vercise system (Boston Scientific®) that includes a separate current source for each segment of the lead which contains 8 contacts. These authors stimulated the best as well as the second best segment and instructed their patients to optimize the applied current via a patient control device. The authors reported an improvement of over 60% during the ON phase on the UPDRS-III rating scale, which is above the average improvement seen with conventional ring electrodes.

Stimulation Parameter Selection

In order to achieve the best clinical effect, certain stimulation parameters have been determined empirically for STN-DBS. Previous studies investigating the specific contribution of frequency, pulse width, and amplitude found that the amplitude had the greatest effect on ameliorating PD motor signs relative to energy-equivalent changes in frequency and pulse width. In one study that examined PD patients with STN-DBS, the amplitude required to improve wrist rigidity ranged from 0.7 to 1.7 mA, and the amplitude required to generate adverse effects was in the range of 1.3–3.4 mA. In an intraoperative examination of clinical STN-DBS effects in 17 PD patients, Sauleau et al. found that the threshold for the vanishing of wrist rigidity was 0.94 V (at 130 Hz and 100 μs). Stimulation frequencies of 50 Hz and 130 Hz improved tremor, rigidity, and bradykinesia, with rigidity improving already above a threshold of 33 Hz. In these studies, there was no significant improvement above 185 Hz for either target symptom, although some reports suggest that tremor tends to respond to a higher frequency. Using frequencies below 50 Hz in STN-DBS did not improve motor signs, even when the total electrical energy delivered (TEED) was similar. In fact, very low frequencies of 5–10 Hz have been found to worsen motor symptoms, in particular, bradykinesia, compared with no stimulation. Moro et al. demonstrated that pulse widths between 60 and 210 μs were beneficial for improving tremor and rigidity, while reduction of bradykinesia relative to baseline was only significant at 60 μs. High-pulse-width stimulation (>210 μs) was generally not well-tolerated. No difference in tremor has been observed with different pulse widths. In addition to rigidity, tremor, and akinesia, STN-DB has a beneficial effect on off-dystonia, whereas improvement in on-dyskinesia is predominantly a consequence of a reduced L-Dopa equivalent dose (LED). Recently, IPGs became available which allow for even shorter pulse widths 60 μs. The CUSTOM-DBS study by Steigerwald et al. investigated 15 PD patients with STN-DBS and found that for STN stimulation, a shorter pulse width of 30 μs resulted in a larger therapeutic window with a non-inferior therapeutic efficacy (as measured by the UPDRS III score) when compared to the standard pulse width of 60 μs. Also, another group showed that stimulation using 30 μs pulse-width results in better walking and speech performance at a similar total electrical energy delivered (TEED). Therefore, the previous recommendation for a fixed pulse width of 60 μs in STN DBS is clearly challenged, although future research needs to confirm these encouraging findings.

Typical Side Effects in STN-DBS

Most DBS side effects can be understood as a result of current spreading into brain regions adjacent to the target area. The STN is a relatively small, ovoid structure with a close anatomical relationship with other deep brain nuclei and tracts, including the internal capsule (lateral, anterior), the substantia nigra (ventral), the red nucleus (medial), the fibers of the third cranial nerve (medioventral), the thalamic fasciculus, also termed field H1 of Forel and composed of the ansa lenticularis and the lenticular fasciculus (mediodorsal), the sensory thalamic nuclei (dorsal), the zona incerta (ZI) and cerebello-rubro-thalamic fibers (medial dorsal, posterior), and the hypothalamus and medial forebrain bundle (anterior) (Figure 3). In addition to these anatomical relationships, the STN is subdivided into different territories (motor, oculomotor, associative, and limbic), each with different connections and specific functions. Previous studies that have analyzed the anatomical location of the most effective contacts used for chronic stimulation showed varying results: the majority of reports suggest that the most effective contacts to ameliorate PD symptoms segregate to the dorso-lateral, sensorimotor aspect of the STN, whereas current spread to the limbic and associative sub-segments may cause unwanted affective and cognitive side effects. Conversely, other studies recommended targeting other areas or even adjacent regions such as the zona incerta (ZI) or the Forel fields H1/H2 and one study found no significant association between the position of the active contacts and the clinical effect. This heterogeneity may be a consequence of methodological differences among the studies, as different imaging techniques were applied to define the position of the electrodes including ventriculography, CT and MRI. In addition, classical studies applied numerical coordinates referenced to the stereotactic space to define the contact position, making the results difficult to interpret without knowing the patient's individual anatomy and because a volume of tissue is represented by a single point. The following adverse effects in STN-DBS can be derived from the function of the adjacent anatomical structures:

Spastic muscle contractions: The most frequent adverse effects include (spastic) contractions involving the facial muscles (“facial pulling”), which often affect bilateral upper facial and contralateral lower facial muscles and are a consequence of current spread into the internal capsule (IC) lateral and anterior to the STN (Figures 3A,D). By modeling the electric field caused by STN-DBS, it was found that even small deviations in the electrodeposition within the STN can result in activation of large diameter myelinated IC axons over a volume that spreads outside the borders of the STN.

Uni- or bilateral gaze deviation: Typical oculomotor side effects are reduced gaze ipsilateral to stimulation, sometimes progressing to contralateral gaze deviation. This resembles conjugate eye deviation during frontal epileptic seizures and is therefore assumed to be caused by activating fibers stemming from the frontal eye field (FEF) which run in the internal capsule in three bundles: a dorsal trans-thalamic trajectory, an intermediate bundle crossing the subthalamic region, and a ventral bundle in the medial portion of the cerebral peduncle, which projects, among other structures, to the subthalamic nucleus. Analyzing 22 electrode locations which intraoperatively could elicit conjugate eye deviations, these positions were found to lie within the lateral anterosuperior border of the STN (Figures 3A,D). This resulted in the recommendation to place the lead or deflect the field to a more medial, posterior, and inferior position. In a single case, this phenomenon was elicited with the STN contacts which provided the best clinical efficiency and could be compensated by bilateral STN stimulation. These eye movements consisted of several saccades and were accompanied by turning the head. Thus, contra-versive and conjugate eye deviation cannot be generally taken as evidence for electrode misplacement. Conversely, activating the fibers of the third nerve (N.III) that run inferomedial to the STN and within the red nucleus (RN) below the STN may result in unilateral gaze deviation and diplopia (Figures 3A,C). Tamma and co-authors claim that stimulation of oculomotor fibers causes adduction or reduced abduction or elevation of the superior eyelid in the ipsilateral eye. Also, in another report, unilateral eye deviations were frequently seen during intraoperative test stimulation when the electrode was medial, posterior, and ventral to the final target. However, this far medial position makes unwanted stimulation of these fibers an extremely rare instant. In experimental stimulation of the third nerve in macaques, only small adduction of the eye was seen but prompt miosis, as expected from physiology. Eyelid opening apraxia has also been observed, although this symptom may be present as part of PD itself, and is occasionally relieved by stimulation but also can be induced by stimulation above the clinically efficient threshold. Mydriasis is rather frequently seen during intraoperative test stimulation and post-operative adjustment along with ipsilateral perspiration. These are quickly adapting symptoms and are not considered as evidence for a misplaced electrode. The central sympathetic tract runs medial to the red nucleus anteriorly to the aqueduct and is therefore not involved, but sympathetic fibers within the zona incerta (ZI) or within the STN (Figures 3A,B) are assumed to be stimulated when mydriasis occurs.

Autonomic side effects: Nausea and excessive sweating are likely a consequence of medial and anterior current spread, presumably corresponding to tissue activation in the hypothalamus and red nucleus (Figures 3B,C). Approximately half of all STN-DBS cases experience dizziness, a sense of heavy- or lightheadedness, or malaise.

Paresthesia: Contralateral paresthesias may be due to stimulation of the medial lemniscus which conveys somatosensory information from the joints and skin and lies ventroposterior to the STN (Figure 3D). With the usual frontal entry of the lead the lowermost contacts may thus encroach on this structure. Mostly, paresthesias are transient but when they persist, a more dorsal contact may be chosen, if clinically effective.

Speech impairment: The impairment of speech frequently occurs during the initial programming and long-term follow-up of STN DBS but can be ameliorated through proper programming. Dysarthria occurs in about 25% of STN-DBS cases and may be caused by current spread into the internal capsule (strained or spastic speech) or otherwise into the pallidal and cerebello-thalamic fiber tracts (crt) medial and dorsal of the STN (Figures 3A,C,D). It is therefore important to distinguish the different causes of DBS-induced dysarthria to be able to adjust stimulation contacts and parameters. In addition, stimulation of the STN itself may account for speech impairment. In particular, medial left-sided stimulation in right-handed patients had a negative effect on prosody, articulation, and overall intelligibility. Accordingly, higher left STN voltage is associated with deterioration of speech. Similarly, other reports demonstrated a strong correlation between high voltages in the left STN and speech impairment.

One report suggested high stimulation frequency to increase the risk of speech impairment. Another report suggested high-frequency stimulation to have a negative effect on speech-related velopharyngeal control.

Dyskinesia: STN-DBS may induce dyskinesia, such as choreiform, ballistic, or dystonic movements reminiscent of levodopa-induced dyskinesia. Dyskinesias occurring during the initial post-operative programming period are thought to indicate a good outcome and the contact inducing dyskinesia is usually the most effective in ameliorating motor symptoms. Rare dystonic effects in STN-DBS included dystonia of head and neck muscles with stridor and dysphagia.

Gait impairment and postural instability: Overall, L-Dopa responsive axial symptoms are also more likely to improve with STN-DBS and indeed, various studies reported gait improvement with STN-DBS, in particular in terms of gait velocity and amplitude of arm and leg swing. On the other hand, long-term follow-up studies have consistently shown that axial symptoms including gait may worsen over time in contrast to the sustained improvement of cardinal motor signs, suggesting a differential effect of DBS on the distal and axial neural control circuits. Indeed, increasing the stimulation amplitude can worsen gait and increase freezing episodes similar to no stimulation as discussed further in detail in section Specific Programming Strategies to Counteract Side Effects in STN-DBS. However, the cause of gait impairment in DBS is most likely multifactorial and, apart from stimulation-induced worsening through the current spread, disease progression, medication reduction, and cognitive decline may contribute. Postural instability is the least likely to respond to DBS and STN-DBS appears to be more detrimental to postural stability as compared to GPi-DBS. Although there is no evidence to support a certain programming strategy to avoid worsening of postural stability, a recent study suggested that limiting current spread to the non-motor territories of the STN would liberate cognitive resources that could be used to maintaining a steady posture and to improve postural stability. Because certain studies suggested that trunk ataxia to be a consequence of activating the red nucleus, directing the current to more lateral areas might be also helpful.

Acute neuropsychiatric side effects: STN-DBS may cause acute neuropsychiatric alterations in addition to preexisting psychiatric comorbidities that can decompensate during or after surgery. Neuropsychiatric signs can be observed in individual subjects during initial programming and may include apathy, mirthful laughter as well as acute mania and acute depression.

Depression: In a case described by Bejjani et al., depression occurred while all contacts were screened in the post-operative setting. When contact the most ventral (Figures 3B,C) was activated, depression set in after 5 s. of stimulation with 2.4 V. This contact was not efficient in relieving PD symptoms and was shown to be located within the substantia nigra. Stimulation of more dorsal contacts provided relief from PD motor signs without causing depression. In addition, apathy and depression may be due to a “hypodopaminergic” state as a consequence of a quick or radical reduction in dopaminergic medication. Recognizing depression is highly relevant since these symptoms have an even bigger impact on the live quality of DBS patients than motor function.

Mania: Manic episodes due to STN stimulation are assumed to be a consequence of stimulating the medial and ventral aspects of the STN. Therefore, the use of more dorsal contacts is recommended in these cases. In addition, stimulating tributary fibers from the STN to the median forebrain bundle may contribute to these symptoms.

Impulse Control Disorders (ICD): The relationship between DBS and ICD is complex and in part controversial. In general, bilateral STN-DBS was found to either ameliorate or worsen decision-making or to have no effect. STN-DBS is associated with the risk of binge eating and punding behavior. Moreover, STN-DBS may induce hypersexuality, hypomania, or compulsive gambling. These effects are most likely associated with using the most ventral contacts and are assumed to be caused by stimulating the ventromedial, limbic area of the STN as well as the SNr and the medial forebrain bundle (Figures 3A,C). One therapeutic option may, therefore, be to avoid current spread into STN-related limbic circuits by deflecting the electrical field to more dorsal and lateral parts. However, ICD may also resolve or improve after surgery and STN-DBS might in fact be considered to treat ICD in PD. Long-term follow-up of patients with STN-DBS showed pre-surgery ICD was abolished in most patients once L-DOPA or dopamine agonist doses were reduced as was the dopamine dysregulation syndrome. In these studies, the de-novo onset of ICD was rare and transient with the exception of compulsive eating. Similar to motor symptoms, the individual patient outcomes in regard to ICD depend on several factors, including target selection, electrode location, programming settings, appropriate medical management, age, and perhaps genotype and is thus difficult to predict.

Cognitive side effects: The effects of STN-DBS on cognition remain controversial. A reduced verbal fluency is well-described, but has been observed with and without stimulation and thus has been attributed to penetrating the caudate nucleus during surgery. On the other hand, Morishit et al. and Isler et al. found no significant difference in cognitive decline between caudate-penetrated and caudate-spared groups. In addition, executive dysfunction and altered short term memory have been observed. These effects are also considered to be a consequence of stimulating the ventral and medial aspect of the STN. However, well-controlled studies did not find detrimental effects of STN-DBS on global cognitive function. The etiology is therefore likely multifactorial and due to the surgical lesion of the frontal lobe and caudate nucleus and diseases progression.

Specific Programming Strategies to Counteract Side Effects in STN-DBS

Some adverse effects may be transient in nature and will disappear despite continuing stimulation. For instance, dyskinesia is a typical side effect of STN-DBS in PD but increasing the amplitude in minute steps and waiting for the dyskinetic symptoms to disappear after each incremental step might ultimately allow for an increase in amplitude required for symptom control despite transient dyskinesia. Moreover, it may be sufficient in some instances to adjust stimulation parameters in order to achieve a more symmetrical or asymmetrical DBS effect. For example, if gait disturbances are prominent in STN-DBS, reducing the stimulation amplitude on the side contralateral to the best motor response resulted in increased stride length, reduction of gait variability, and a reduction in freezing episodes. On the other hand, asymmetric stimulation may be helpful in ameliorating the emotional side effects of STN-DBS, that are thought to be lateralized. The latter study demonstrated emotional auditory stimuli to induce activity in the ventral non-oscillatory region of the right STN but not in the left ventral STN or in the dorsal regions of either the right or left STN. These results suggest that DBS of the right ventral STN may be associated with beneficial or adverse emotional effects observed STN-DBS. The authors suggest that the stimulation parameters in the right STN should be modified to counteract psychiatric side effects. This hypothesis is tempting but needs further confirmation from clinical studies. When permanent side effects occur, either the stimulating contact or the stimulation parameters may be changed or, as the last option, the electrode may be repositioned. The first step is to check the electrode position in case this is not done routinely after surgery or if post-surgical images are not available. The second step is to reduce the current of the activated contact(s) and/or choose another contact for stimulation. For example, choosing a more dorsal contact is recommended when persistent paresthesias occur as well as in psychiatric symptoms (see above). Alternative electrode configurations can be achieved by combining single contacts to a compound cathode (double or triple monopolar) or by setting another lead contact as an anode (bipolar). The latter allows the volume of tissue activated (VTA) to be restricted at the expense of higher energy consumption, although one should be aware that the extent of the computed VTA varies substantially with the material properties of the surrounding brain tissue. Alternatively, interleaving stimulation (Medtronic®) may be applied. Interleaving stimulation (ILS) consists of rapid and alternate activation of two electrode contacts with two distinct amplitudes and pulse widths but with the same frequency up to a maximum of 125 Hz and a delay of 4 ms between two stimuli. In general, ILS may be applied either to limit stimulation-induced adverse effects or else, to stimulate different brain regions with individualized settings in order to alleviate specific symptoms. For example, ILS was successfully applied for freezing of gait (additional stimulation of substantia nigra) as well as tremor (additional stimulation of zona incerta). However, with the exception of case reports and small case series, there are no larger prospective trials that have investigated the clinical effect of ILS. In accord with previous reports, a recent study from Kern et al. demonstrated improvement with ILS for adverse effect management predominately for the treatment of dyskinesia and improvement of PD motor symptoms with ILS, whereas ILS was less effective in ET and dystonia. Of note, a contact was added into the rostral zona incerta (ZI) (Figure 3A) in the majority of dyskinetic patients, thus suggesting a particular role of the ZI and the surrounding pallido-thalamic fibers for improving dyskinesia and a potential ILS target in STN-DBS. These alternative targets are under active investigation for treating dyskinesias, although sound evidence for using these structures is still lacking. A drawback of ILS is that battery drainage is likely increased with ILS as 2 independent programming settings are applied.

Short Pulse Width Stimulation (SPWS)

Decreasing the standard pulse width, which is currently only possible with Boston Scientific® or Abbot® devices, represents an alternative strategy to counteract unwanted side effects in STN-DBS. For example, Reich et al. investigated pulse widths below 60 μs at a frequency of 130 Hz and found that compared to (standard) 60 μs stimulation, the therapeutic window increased by a mean of 182% with a PW of 30 μs, and decreased by 46% with a PW of 120 μs. Although the stimulation amplitude required for rigidity control increased with reducing pulse widths from a mean of 1.6 mA at 60 μs to 2.9 mA at 30 μs, the TEED required for the clinical effect of rigidity control decreased. This is thought to be mediated by more selective action of stimulation on the fiber tracts that are responsible for symptom relief while the neighboring thick and myelinated corticospinal and corticobulbar fibers are thought to be less affected by short pulse width stimulation.

Low-Frequency Stimulation (LFS)

If gait and balance issues such as freezing of gait (FOG) or other axial symptoms predominate, LFS (60–80 Hz) may be a good treatment strategy for PD patients with STN-DBS. FOG is a gait disorder featured by recurrent transient gait retardation and interruption that occurs in PD, PD-plus syndromes and vascular parkinsonism. Most FOG episodes are related to the OFF state in PD, but severe cases begin to suffer from ON state FOG (ON-FOG). FOG increases the risk of falls for PD patients and has a large impact on the motor function and daily life of the patients. HFS-DBS of the STN can alleviate FOG in some patients, particularly if FOG is related to medication OFF state. On the other hand, HFS-DBS may induce FOG in PD. Pharmacological treatment options for FOG include L-DOPA, methylphenidate and amantadine. Alternatively, the stimulator may be switched to LFS. LFS (60–80 Hz), compared to HFS (130 Hz), has been shown to have beneficial effects on improving FOG and other axial symptoms, such as speech and swallowing function, in PD patients with bilateral STN-DBS in some studies or selected patients, but not in others. Some found short-term but not long- term beneficial effect, while others found both short-term and long-term benefits after 6 weeks, 8 months and even 10 months study periods. It is not well-understood, which factors account for the different responses of FOG and other axial symptoms to LFS. Possible factors include the presence or absence of pre-existing FOG, the frequency used (60 vs. 80 Hz), the maintenance of the TEED [TEED = (voltage2 × pulse width × frequency)/impedance)] with frequency adjustment and the location of the active contacts (ventral vs. dorsal). In most studies, adjusting for TEED appeared to be less relevant than the frequency. This in line with the finding that neuronal responses relative to frequency are highly non-linear as demonstrated by Huang et al.. In summary, it is currently unclear, which patients benefit most from LFS vs. HFS, but likely applies to patients that have pre-existing FOG at HFS-DBS on exam. In some studies, switching from a high to low frequency (<100 Hz) stimulation also ameliorated speech intelligibility and acoustic parameters such as hypophonia. On the other hand, tremor control has been observed to be worse with lower frequencies.

Alternative Electrode Targets for Axial Symptoms and Gait Disorders

If there is a beneficial effect of LFS on gait, it may be caused at least in part, by affecting neurons that project to the pedunculo-pontine nucleus (PPN) as unilateral or bilateral LFS of this structure directly and in combination with stimulation of additional target structures has been shown to improve FOG. The PPN has reciprocal cholinergic connections with the STN, its degeneration may be crucial in the pathophysiology of gait and balance deterioration in PD and stimulation of the PPN may improve axial symptoms in PD. The PPN may be stimulated by leads in this region alone or in conjunction with the STN, the SNr, or the GPi. Interestingly, the optimal contact positions for LFS were more ventrally located in the STN than optimal contacts for 130 Hz-stimulation. More recently, there has been interest in the stimulation of the SNr, which is located ventrally and medially to the STN. One study found that among PD patients treated with STN-DBS at 130 Hz via the most distal contact of the quadripolar electrode resulted in an improvement of gait and posture. Subsequently, another group of researchers used interleaving to stimulate both the STN and the SNr and found that FOG was significantly improved with combined STN/SNr stimulation, although other axial symptoms on UPDRS did not significantly differ. At the same time, stimulating the SN also comprises the risk of worsening akinesia and of inducing depressive symptoms. In summary, the combined stimulation of PPN plus STN, PPN plus GPi, or STN plus SNr, may be useful for the treatment of FOG in PD patients. The optimal combination of nuclei to be stimulated and the stimulation parameters need to be determined by future clinical trials. In addition to its effect on gait and balance, LFS may reduce stimulation-induced dyskinesia. This may be particularly relevant for dorsal-projecting contacts in or close to the ZI above the STN, that have been reported to have an anti-dyskinetic effect with different stimulator settings.

General Considerations on Post-Operative Care

The time point to initiate DBS after STN implantation surgery varies between institutions. Early programming (within the first days after surgery) satisfies the patient's wish for a timely treatment but may be hindered by a improvement in PD symptoms due to the lesion caused by the electrode (stun effect) which may last up to 2 weeks or even longer: the mean medication “ON” time improved 3 months after STN electrode implantation even in the absence of electrical stimulation, thus demonstrating an improvement with surgery alone. At which time point DBS is initiated after surgery thus depends on the procedures established in each institution. In any way, the initial programming should be performed after an overnight washout of dopaminergic drugs so that the effect of DBS can be assessed without the interference of medications. Adjusting anti-parkinsonian drugs typically occur after initial programming of STN-DBS. There is no specific evidence on how and when to adjust medication after STN-DBS is programmed. The insertional effect and the effect of the electrical stimulation synergize to ameliorate PD symptoms, thus requiring a reduction of the pre-operative LED to avoid dyskinesia. In addition, there may be significant placebo or nocebo effects subsequent to electrode implantation. Stopping dopaminergic medication altogether is not recommended, as this may induce a hypodopaminergic state including apathy and depression. Importantly, these symptoms may develop even weeks after the cessation of dopaminergic drugs. In particular, in patients that suffer from impulse control disorder, cutting dopamine agonists is advisable. Otherwise, L-Dopa should be reduced first. Finally, reducing L-Dopa might unmask preexisting Restless Legs Syndrome that would have to be considered for treatment.

Constant Voltage vs. Constant Current Stimulation

In addition to the micro-lesion effect, the fluctuation of impedances may bias the determination of the therapeutic window in the early post-operative period which might become more relevant hen using constant-voltage stimulation (CVS) where the current delivered is inversely proportional to the electrode impedance. Conversely, current-constant stimulation (CCS) may offer more stable stimulation, in particular when programming soon after surgery. Apart from possibly affecting the outcome in an individual patient, using CCS instead of CVS might allow for an improved generalization of outcome between subjects such that knowledge gained from one set of subjects can be generalized to others. Because the total current delivered current depends on both voltage and impedance, and since voltage is held constant with CVS, potential variations in current over time will be mainly a consequence of impedance fluctuations. Data from examining non-human primates using a small version of the human DBS lead supported this hypothesis as the electrode impedance progressively increased over 7 days post-implantation, resulting in a reduction of current delivered. Benabid et al. reported impedance changes in patients with VIM stimulation for ET. These authors observed an increase in impedance of 33% (on average) over 3 months following the implantation of DBS leads. Thereafter the impedance stabilized. Sillay et al. measured impedances in 63 DBS patients with PD, essential tremor, and dystonia at various time intervals following DBS surgery. All measurements were performed at >25 days post-operatively, and in the absence of changes in the stimulation parameters between time points. On average, the authors found no significant intra-patient or intra-electrode impedance changes. However, over half had a small increase in impedance over time, and 40% had a small decrease in impedance, with the largest change observed being 23% in a single subject. Hemm et al. described similar results in patients with dystonia observing that impedance values changed only slightly over time within a single patient but that there were differences between patients and between active and non-active DBS contacts. However, Cheung et al. analyzed a large database of impedance measurements from 94 subjects, ranging from 6 months to 5 years after implantation. They found that a significant amount of impedance variability could be expected in chronically implanted DBS electrodes, with a range spanning from 18 to over 600 Ω. Studies that compared CCS and CVS did not show any significant differences in non-motor outcomes, including cognition, mood, and quality of life in a double-blind crossover trial. A retrospective analysis of 19 patients with PD and dystonic syndromes switched from CVS to CCS reported no change in measured clinical outcomes and therapy satisfaction at 6 months, whereas a more recent study found better outcomes with CCS. Taken together, the relevance of changes in the electrode impedance and, as a result, the total electric charge transferred, is uncertain and the specific consequences of using CCS vs. VCS stimulation are not yet clear and currently, there is no clear evidence to support an early or late post-operative initiation of DBS.

Specific Programming Strategies in VIM-DBS

Compared to STN-DBS, the evidence for adjusting neurostimulation parameters in VIM-DBS is limited. In case of ET, kinetic tremor, the principal target of stimulation adjustments, the limb can be assessed with the finger-to-nose or finger-to-finger maneuver or by asking the patient to draw a spiral, drink water from a cup or pour water from a glass into another one. In addition, postural tremor can be assessed with the arms outstretched or elbows bent (wing-beating position). In general, the programming strategies outlined above can be applied for VIM-DBS. Using a pulse width of 60 μs and a frequency of 130 Hz, the current intensity is usually increased progressively until tremor stops or until side effects are encountered. If the tremor is not optimally controlled at 3.5 volts, pulse width and then the frequency of the stimulation may be increased. Studies evaluating the effect of different stimulation parameters in ET showed that tremor responds best to increase the amplitude and is further improved by 25% with longer pulse widths (90–120 μs). The frequency-response curve shows an inverse linear relationship between tremor magnitude and frequency between 45 and 100 Hz and a plateau above 130 Hz, although an additional but variable effect between 130 and 200 Hz has been documented. Similar to what has been demonstrated for STN-DBS, reducing the pulse width has been shown to widen the therapeutic window in ET where the minimum pulse width for suppression of tremor was shown to be significantly different to that for induction of ataxia, with values of 27 and 52 μs, respectively. Comparing directional stimulation with segmented electrodes to conventional ring stimulation, Rebelo et al. found an increased therapeutic window and reduced current with stimulation in the best direction compared to the best omnidirectional stimulation alternative (Figure 1). Likewise, alternative targets directly adjacent to the VIM have been described for ET. For instance, the caudal ZI has been examined as a target for patients with tremor suggesting that ZI stimulation may even exceed tremor control through stimulation of the VIM. These findings are consistent with results from diffusion tensor imaging data suggesting that the best tremor control is obtained with stimulation of the cerebello-thalamic afferents, which are embedded in the ZI.

Typical Side Effects in VIM-DBS

The VIM nucleus of the thalamus is located close to the STN in the vicinity of the internal capsule (lateral), the centromedian and parafascicular nucleus of the thalamus and the commissural nucleus (medial), the zona incerta (ZI) and H1/H2 field of Forel (ventral), the ventroanterior (VA), the ventrolateral anterior (VLA) and posterior (VLP) nuclei of the thalamus (dorsal), and the ventromedial thalamic nucleus (VM) (anterior, posterior) (Figure 3). Common side effects include the following:

Paresthesia is the most common short term side effect because the electrical field reaches into the thalamic sensory nuclei dorsal to the VIM (Figure 3A). It can be transient, lasting from a few seconds to minutes, or permanent, and only resolving with reducing stimulation.

Speech impairment: Dysarthria is a significant complaint in more than half of ET patients with bilateral VIM-DBS, although dysarthria is common in ET even in the absence of DBS. This is relevant because clinicians often choose suboptimal stimulation parameters to avoid stimulation-induced side effects, more frequently seen in patients with bilateral VIM-DBS. Speech impairment appears to occur more frequently with higher stimulation amplitudes and with more ventral stimulation contacts. As with STN-DBS, dysarthria may be caused by interference with the cerebello-thalamic or with motor fibers of the internal capsule (Figures 3C,D) located laterally to the VIM causing spastic dysarthria and appropriate contact adjustment may be beneficial.

Gait ataxia: Another common complaint in patients with VIM-DBS is balance issues with an unsteady gait. As with speech disturbances, current spread into dentato-thalamic afferents lateral and ventral the VIM (Figure 3C) may be the cause of such gait and limb ataxia, although gait and limb ataxia can be a sign of ET itself, commonly referred to as ET-Plus. Switching off DBS even for several days can help to distinguish between the two, but rebound tremor needs to be considered.

Loss of Stimulation Benefit: In ET, the energy required for tremor suppression and the number of active contacts typically increase as the disease progresses and this effect is more common in ET as compared to other tremor types. Indeed, some studies showed the initial improvement in activities of daily living evident at 1 year after the DBS implantation to be lost in the long run except the ability to eat. The loss of long-term benefit in ET has been attributed to DBS tolerance, natural disease progression, and other factors including brain atrophy. Possible strategies to avoid the adaptation of neuronal networks in ET include switching the stimulation off at night, inverting the electrode configuration in patients using bipolar settings or on-demand stimulation.

Specific Programming Strategies in GPi-DBS

GPi-DBS has been applied worldwide as a surgical treatment alternative for medical refractory segmental or generalized dystonia. Although GPi-DBS seems to be more effective for isolated than non-isolated dystonia, there is no evidence that non-isolated dystonia needs a different programming approach. The role of specific stimulation parameters on dystonic symptoms is probably even less established than with VIM-DBS for ET. This is likely a consequence of the heterogeneity of symptoms. In addition, and unlike in STN- and VIM-DBS, where the effect is observed within seconds to minutes, the effect of GPi-DBS on dystonia may not occur for hours, days, or in some cases even months (Figure 2B). For instance, Krauss et al. noted that phasic dystonic movements were often relieved within minutes of stimulation onset, whereas improvement in tonic posturing took several months to fully manifest. When adjusting neurostimulation in dystonia, phasic dystonic movements, such as dystonic neck movements, are therefore best suited for evaluation because tonic dystonic components usually need more time to improve. This may be in part be due to musculoskeletal abnormalities caused by long-standing dystonic posture. Accordingly, most GPi-DBS patients fail to show a clear insertional effect. In accord, tonic dystonic symptoms may take a lot longer to reappear upon cessation of GPi-DBS than phasic one (Figure 2B). In some cases, discontinuing GPi-DBS may result in a clinical rebound effect with acutely severe symptoms. The principal programming algorithm follows the same recommendations as with PD or ET with some modifications. For instance, a high frequency of 185 Hz has been proposed to be effective in GPi-DBS. There is a debate on the selection of the contact for chronic stimulation as there is a poor correlation between benefit and stimulation in different regions of the GPi. Cheung et al. recently identified a small area located squarely in the middle of the GPi as a potential specific therapeutic target for DBS for dystonia, whereas recent evidence from our own group suggests that most efficient DBS electrodes displayed a close anatomic proximity to the pallidothalamic tracts (ansa and fasciculus lenticularis) between the GPi and the pyramidal tract. Thus, stimulation is most commonly initiated in the ventral region of the GPi above the optic tract (contacts 0 and 1) with a short pulse width (60–120 μs), high frequency (130–185 Hz) and amplitude just prior to eliciting adverse effects. Due to the anatomical location of the target, delayed side effects are less likely to occur than with STN- or VIM-DBS, thus favoring a top-down approach and starting the stimulation with the highest tolerated voltage. The use of high- vs. low-frequency stimulation in dystonia has shown mixed results. Alterman et al. suggested that the use of 60 Hz stimulation can be beneficial in some patients, whereas another group preferred high-frequency stimulation. Moro et al. concluded that high-amplitude and high-frequency stimulation predict better outcome in cervical dystonia. Various pulse widths have been recommended in GPi-DBS. Coubes et al. recommend the use of 450 μs. However, another study comparing 60, 120, and 450 μs did not show any significant differences between the three groups.

Typical Side Effects in GPi-DBS

The GPi is surrounded by the globus pallidus externus and putamen (anterior, posterior, lateral), the internal capsule, ZI and MFB (medial), the ansa lenticularis (mediodorsal), the optical tract (ventral), the amygdala (laterodorsal), the ventral pallidum (laterodorsal) (Figure 4). As with STN- and VIM-DBS, side effects in GPi stimulation can result from current spreading into neighboring regions in many cases:

Hypo-/Bradykinesis: The occurrence of parkinsonian motor signs, such as micrographia and postural deficits, has been described as a possible adverse effect of GPi-DBS in dystonia. This may be the result of stimulating distinct regions within the GPi: whereas stimulation of the dorsal part of the GPi improves PD signs and symptoms like hypokinesia and rigidity, stimulation of the postero-ventral part suppresses levodopa-induced hyperkinesias but may lead to a deterioration of hypokinesia and gait. As a consequence, stimulation-induced hypokinesia is more frequent with use of the ventral contacts and may be significantly reduced by switching to dorsal contacts. Because the ventral contacts are the most effective at controlling dystonic symptoms, this approach may lead to a worsening of dystonia.

Speech Impairment: In patients with primary dystonia treated with GPi-DBS, dysarthria is one of the most common stimulation-induced side effects reported in close to 30% in follow-up studies. As with STN- or VIMN-DBS, this may be caused by current spreading into the internal capsule medial and posterior to the GPi (Figures 4A–D). In addition, stuttering may occur with GPi stimulation, emphasizing the role of the GPi in speech fluency.

Phosphenes: These may be caused by current spread into the optic tract that is located ventral of the GPi (Figures 4A,C).

There is no specific evidence for general programming strategies to avoid speech disturbances in GPi-DBS other than the general strategies for avoiding side effects outlined above.

Conclusion

Programming the IPG is the only modifiable factor once DBS leads have been implanted and thus crucially impacts on the overall treatment success. Although our review does not provide a specific level of evidence for an overall programming strategy, we here summarized appraised strategies on how to adjust stimulation parameters and program settings in different movement disorders. Therefore, we reviewed previous studies that examined the significance of distinct stimulation strategies for ameliorating disease signs. We summarized the well-characterized significance of the stimulation amplitude, frequency and pulse width on clinical symptoms. In addition, we provided an in-depth review of potential side effects in DBS of the STN, VIM, and GPi. Based on these effects, we specifically examined more recent techniques for modulating neuronal elements, such as directional current steering, low-frequency, and short pulse-width stimulation as these strategies were shown to enlarge the therapeutic window and thus allow for a more favorable outcome in different movement disorders. In conjunction with a recommendation for managing pharmacotherapy in PD after initiation of DBS, we thus provide a concise review for STN-, VIM-, and GPi-DBS programming.

Author Contributions

TK conceived the project, conducted literature research, and wrote the paper. CP, FH, JM, and KB wrote the paper.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References 302

  1. 1.

    Cooper IS Upton AR Amin I. Reversibility of chronic neurologic deficits. Some effects of electrical stimulation of the thalamus and internal capsule in man. Appl Neurophysiol. (1980 ) 43:244–58.

    Not in our library10.1159/000102263

  2. 2.

    Benabid AL Pollak P Gervason C Hoffmann D Gao DM Hommel M. Long-term suppression of tremor by chronic stimulation of the ventral intermediate thalamic nucleus. Lancet. (1991 ) 337:403–6.

    Not in our library10.1016/0140-6736(91)91175-t

  3. 3.

    Volkmann J Moro E Pahwa R. Basic algorithms for the programming of deep brain stimulation in Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord. (2006 ) 21(Suppl. 14):S284–9.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.20961

  4. 4.

    Walter BL Vitek JL. Surgical treatment for Parkinson's disease. Lancet Neurol. (2004 ) 3:719–28.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1474-4422(04)00934-2

  5. 5.

    Machado A Rezai AR Kopell BH Gross RE Sharan AD Benabid A-L. Deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease: Surgical technique and perioperative management. Mov Disord. (2006 ) 21:S247–58.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.20959

  6. 6.

    Mobin F De Salles AA Behnke EJ Frysinger R. Correlation between MRI-based stereotactic thalamic deep brain stimulation electrode placement, macroelectrode stimulation and clinical response to tremor control. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. (1999 ) 72:225–32.

    Not in our library10.1159/000029730

  7. 7.

    Patel NK Plaha P O'Sullivan K McCarter R Heywood P Gill SS. MRI directed bilateral stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus in patients with Parkinson's disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. (2003 ) 74:1631–7.

    Not in our library10.1136/jnnp.74.12.1631

  8. 8.

    Burchiel KJ McCartney S Lee A Raslan AM. Accuracy of deep brain stimulation electrode placement using intraoperative computed tomography without microelectrode recording. J Neurosurg. (2013 ) 119:301–6.

    Not in our library10.3171/2013.4.jns122324

  9. 9.

    Langsdorff von D Paquis P Fontaine D In vivo measurement of the frame-based application accuracy of the Neuromate neurosurgical robot. J Neurosurg. (2015 ) 122:191–4.

    Not in our library10.3171/2014.9.jns14256

  10. 10.

    Lefranc M Capel C Pruvot AS Fichten A Desenclos C Toussaint P. The impact of the reference imaging modality, registration method and intraoperative flat-panel computed tomography on the accuracy of the ROSA® stereotactic robot. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. (2014 ) 92:242–50.

    Not in our library10.1159/000362936

  11. 11.

    D'Haese P-F Pallavaram S Konrad PE Neimat J Fitzpatrick JM Dawant BM. Clinical accuracy of a customized stereotactic platform for deep brain stimulation after accounting for brain shift. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. (2010 ) 88:81–7.

    Not in our library10.1159/000271823

  12. 12.

    Bjartmarz H Rehncrona S. Comparison of accuracy and precision between frame-based and frameless stereotactic navigation for deep brain stimulation electrode implantation. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. (2007 ) 85:235–42.

    Not in our library10.1159/000103262

  13. 13.

    Winkler D. The first evaluation of brain shift during functional neurosurgery by deformation field analysis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. (2005 ) 76:1161–3.

    Not in our library10.1136/jnnp.2004.047373

  14. 14.

    Khan MF Mewes K Gross RE Škrinjar O. Assessment of brain shift related to deep brain stimulation surgery. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. (2007 ) 86:44–53.

    Not in our library10.1159/000108588

  15. 15.

    Hunsche S Sauner D Maarouf M Poggenborg JOR Lackner K Sturm V. Intraoperative X-ray detection and mri-based quantification of brain shift effects subsequent to implantation of the first electrode in bilateral implantation of deep brain stimulation electrodes. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. (2009 ) 87:322–9.

    Not in our library10.1159/000235804

  16. 16.

    Fazl A Pourfar MH Mogilner A Rescue leads for suboptimal results following deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease. Brain Stimul. (2017 ) 10:462

    Not in our library10.1016/j.brs.2017.01.354

  17. 17.

    Nagy AM Tolleson CM. Rescue procedures after suboptimal deep brain stimulation outcomes in common movement disorders. Brain Sci. (2016 ) 6:46.

    Not in our library10.3390/brainsci6040046

  18. 18.

    Guridi J Rodriguez-Oroz MC Lozano AM Moro E Albanese A Nuttin B. Targeting the basal ganglia for deep brain stimulation in Parkinson's disease. Neurology. (2000 ) 55:S21–8.

    Not in our library

  19. 19.

    Okun MS Tagliati M Pourfar M Fernandez HH Rodriguez RL Alterman RL. Management of referred deep brain stimulation failures: a retrospective analysis from 2 movement disorders centers. Arch Neurol. (2005 ) 62:1250–5.

    Not in our library10.1001/archneur.62.8.noc40425

  20. 20.

    Rolston JD Englot DJ Starr PA Larson PS. An unexpectedly high rate of revisions and removals in deep brain stimulation surgery: analysis of multiple databases. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. (2016 ) 33:72–7.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.parkreldis.2016.09.014

  21. 21.

    Kuncel AM Grill WM. Selection of stimulus parameters for deep brain stimulation. Clin Neurophysiol. (2004 ) 115:2431–41.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.clinph.2004.05.031

  22. 22.

    Moro E Poon Y-YW Lozano AM Saint-Cyr JA Lang AE. Subthalamic nucleus stimulation: improvements in outcome with reprogramming. Arch Neurol. (2006 ) 63:1266–72.

    Not in our library10.1001/archneur.63.9.1266

  23. 23.

    Rizzone M Lanotte M Bergamasco B Tavella A Torre E Faccani G. Deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus in Parkinson's disease: effects of variation in stimulation parameters. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. (2001 ) 71:215–9.

    Not in our library10.1136/jnnp.71.2.215

  24. 24.

    Moro E Esselink RJA Xie J Hommel M Benabid AL Pollak P. The impact on Parkinson's disease of electrical parameter settings in STN stimulation. Neurology. (2002 ) 59:706–13.

    Not in our library10.1212/wnl.59.5.706

  25. 25.

    Picillo M Lozano AM Kou N Puppi Munhoz R Fasano A. Programming deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease: the toronto western hospital algorithms. Brain Stimul. (2016 ) 9:425–37.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.brs.2016.02.004

  26. 26.

    Picillo M Lozano AM Kou N Munhoz RP Fasano A. Programming deep brain stimulation for tremor and dystonia: the toronto western hospital algorithms. Brain Stimul. (2016 ) 9:438–52.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.brs.2016.02.003

  27. 27.

    Volkmann J Herzog J Kopper F Deuschl G. Introduction to the programming of deep brain stimulators. Mov Disord. (2002 ) 17(Suppl. 3):S181–7.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.10162

  28. 28.

    Hunka K Suchowersky O Wood S Derwent L Kiss ZHT. Nursing time to program and assess deep brain stimulators in movement disorder patients. J Neurosci Nurs. (2005 ) 37:204–10.

    Not in our library10.1097/01376517-200508000-00006

  29. 29.

    Amon A Alesch F. Systems for deep brain stimulation: review of technical features. J Neural Transm. (2017 ) 124:1083–91.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00702-017-1751-6

  30. 30.

    McIntyre CC Anderson RW. Deep brain stimulation mechanisms: the control of network activity via neurochemistry modulation. J Neurochem. (2016 ) 139:338–45.

    Not in our library10.1111/jnc.13649

  31. 31.

    Lozano AM Lipsman N. Probing and regulating dysfunctional circuits using deep brain stimulation. Neuron. (2013 ) 77:406–24.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.neuron.2013.01.020

  32. 32.

    Bronstein JM Tagliati M Alterman RL Lozano AM Volkmann J Stefani A. Deep brain stimulation for Parkinson disease: an expert consensus and review of key issues. Arch Neurol. (2011 ) 68:165.

    Not in our library10.1001/archneurol.2010.260

  33. 33.

    Temperli P Ghika J Villemure J-G Burkhard PR Bogousslavsky J Vingerhoets FJG. How do parkinsonian signs return after discontinuation of subthalamic DBS? Neurology. (2003 ) 60:78–81.

    Not in our library10.1212/wnl.60.1.78

  34. 34.

    Hristova A Lyons K Troster AI Pahwa R Wilkinson SB Koller WC. Effect and time course of deep brain stimulation of the globus pallidus and subthalamus on motor features of Parkinson's disease. Clin Neuropharmacol. (2000 ) 23:208–11.

    Not in our library10.1097/00002826-200007000-00007

  35. 35.

    Levin J Krafczyk S Valkovic P Eggert T Claassen J Bötzel K. Objective measurement of muscle rigidity in Parkinsonian patients treated with subthalamic stimulation. Mov Disord. (2009 ) 24:57–63.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.22291

  36. 36.

    Defer GL Widner H Marié RM Rémy P Levivier M. Core assessment program for surgical interventional therapies in Parkinson's disease (CAPSIT-PD). Mov Disord. (1999 ) 572–84.

    Not in our library10.1002/1531-8257(199907)14:4<572::aid-mds1005>3.0.co;2-c

  37. 37.

    Deuschl G Herzog J Kleiner-Fisman G Kubu C Lozano AM Lyons KE. Deep brain stimulation: postoperative issues. Mov Disord. (2006 ) 21(Suppl. 14):219–37.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.20957

  38. 38.

    Dembek TA Reker P Visser Vandewalle V Wirths J Treuer H Klehr M. Directional DBS increases side-effect thresholds-A prospective, double-blind trial. Mov Disord. (2017 ) 32:1380–8.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.27093

  39. 39.

    Pollo C Kaelin-Lang A Oertel MF Stieglitz L Taub E Fuhr P. Directional deep brain stimulation: an intraoperative double-blind pilot study. Brain. (2014 ) 137:2015–26.

    Not in our library10.1093/brain/awu102

  40. 40.

    Reker P Dembek TA Becker J Visser Vandewalle V Timmermann L. Directional deep brain stimulation: a case of avoiding dysarthria with bipolar directional current steering. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. (2016 ) 31:156–8.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.parkreldis.2016.08.007

  41. 41.

    Contarino MF Bour LJ Verhagen R Lourens MAJ de Bie RMA van den Munckhof P. Directional steering: a novel approach to deep brain stimulation. Neurology. (2014 ) 83:1163–9.

    Not in our library10.1212/wnl.0000000000000823

  42. 42.

    Volkmann J Chabardes S Steinke GK Carcieri S 375 DIRECT DBS: a prospective, multicenter clinical trial with blinding for a directional deep brain stimulation lead. Neurosurgery. (2016 ) 63(Suppl. 1):211–2.

    Not in our library10.1227/01.neu.0000489863.00935.ea

  43. 43.

    Schüpbach WMM Chabardes S Matthies C Pollo C Steigerwald F Timmermann L. Directional leads for deep brain stimulation: opportunities and challenges. Mov Disord. (2017 ) 32:1371–5.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.27096

  44. 44.

    Rebelo P Green AL Aziz TZ Kent A Schafer D Venkatesan L. Thalamic directional deep brain stimulation for tremor: spend less, get more. Brain Stimul. (2018 ) 11:600–6.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.brs.2017.12.015

  45. 45.

    Timmermann L Jain R Chen L Maarouf M Barbe MT Allert N. Multiple-source current steering in subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease (the VANTAGE study): a non-randomised, prospective, multicentre, open-label study. Lancet Neurol. (2015 ) 14:693–701.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1474-4422(15)00087-3

  46. 46.

    Sauleau P Raoul S Lallement F Rivier I Drapier S Lajat Y. Motor and non motor effects during intraoperative subthalamic stimulation for Parkinson's disease. J Neurol. (2005 ) 252:457–64.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00415-005-0675-5

  47. 47.

    Miocinovic S Khemani P Whiddon R Zeilman P Martinez-Ramirez D. Outcomes, management, and potential mechanisms of interleaving deep brain stimulation settings. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. (2014 ) 20:1434–7.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.parkreldis.2014.10.011

  48. 48.

    Timmermann L Wojtecki L Gross J Lehrke R Voges J Maarouf M. Ten-Hertz stimulation of subthalamic nucleus deteriorates motor symptoms in Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord. (2004 ) 19:1328–33.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.20198

  49. 49.
    Effects of low-frequency stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus on movement in Parkinson's disease · 2008
    No notice
  50. 50.

    Limousin P Pollak P Benazzouz A Hoffmann D Broussolle E Perret JE. Bilateral subthalamic nucleus stimulation for severe Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord. (1995 ) 10:672–4.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.870100523

  51. 51.

    Limousin P Krack P Pollak P Benazzouz A Ardouin C Hoffmann D. Electrical stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus in advanced Parkinson's disease. N Engl J Med. (1998 ) 339:1105–11.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejm199810153391603

  52. 52.

    Krack P Pollak P Limousin P Benazzouz A Deuschl G Benabid AL. From off-period dystonia to peak-dose chorea. The clinical spectrum of varying subthalamic nucleus activity. Brain. (1999 ) 122(Pt 6):1133–46.

    Not in our library10.1093/brain/122.6.1133

  53. 53.

    Steigerwald F Timmermann L Kuhn A Schnitzler A Reich MM Kirsch AD. Pulse duration settings in subthalamic stimulation for Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord. (2017 ) 33:165–9.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.27238

  54. 54.

    Dayal V Grover T Limousin P Akram H Cappon D Candelario J. The effect of short pulse width settings on the therapeutic window in subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease. J Parkinsons Dis. (2018 ) 8:273–9.

    Not in our library10.3233/jpd-171272

  55. 55.

    Mai JK Majtanik M Paxinos G Atlas of the Human Brain. San Diego, CA: Academic Press (2015 ).

    Not in our library

  56. 56.

    Güngör A Baydin SS Holanda VM Middlebrooks EH Isler C Tugcu B Microsurgical anatomy of the subthalamic nucleus: correlating fiber dissection results with 3-T magnetic resonance imaging using neuronavigation. J Neurosurg. (2018 ) 8:1–17.

    Not in our library10.3171/2017.10.jns171513

  57. 57.

    Benarroch EE. Subthalamic nucleus and its connections: anatomic substrate for the network effects of deep brain stimulation. Neurology. (2008 ) 70:1991–5.

    Not in our library10.1212/01.wnl.0000313022.39329.65

  58. 58.

    Herzog J Fietzek U Hamel W Morsnowski A Steigerwald F Schrader B. Most effective stimulation site in subthalamic deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord. (2004 ) 19:1050–4.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.20056

  59. 59.

    Lanotte MM Rizzone M Bergamasco B Faccani G Melcarne A Lopiano L. Deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus: anatomical, neurophysiological, and outcome correlations with the effects of stimulation. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. (2002 ) 72:53–8.

    Not in our library10.1136/jnnp.72.1.53

  60. 60.

    Saint-Cyr JA Hoque T Pereira LCM Dostrovsky JO Hutchison WD Mikulis DJ. Localization of clinically effective stimulating electrodes in the human subthalamic nucleus on magnetic resonance imaging. J Neurosurg. (2002 ) 97:1152–66.

    Not in our library10.3171/jns.2002.97.5.1152

  61. 61.

    Zheng Z Zhang Y-Q Li J-Y Zhang X-H Zhuang P Li Y-J. Subthalamic deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease: correlation of active contacts and electrophysiologically mapped subthalamic nucleus. Chin Med J. (2009 ) 122:2419–22.

    Not in our library

  62. 62.

    Zonenshayn M Sterio D Kelly PJ Rezai AR Beric A. Location of the active contact within the subthalamic nucleus (STN) in the treatment of idiopathic Parkinson's disease. Surg Neurol. (2004 ) 62:216–25; discussion: 225–6.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.surneu.2003.09.039

  63. 63.

    Garcia-Garcia D Guridi J Toledo JB Alegre M Obeso JA Rodriguez-Oroz MC. Stimulation sites in the subthalamic nucleus and clinical improvement in Parkinson's disease: a new approach for active contact localization. J Neurosurg. (2016 ) 125:1068–79.

    Not in our library10.3171/2015.9.jns15868

  64. 64.

    Wodarg F Herzog J Reese R Falk D Pinsker MO Steigerwald F. Stimulation site within the MRI-defined STN predicts postoperative motor outcome. Mov Disord. (2012 ) 27:874–79.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.25006

  65. 65.

    Coenen VA Honey CR Hurwitz T Rahman AA McMaster J Bürgel U. Medial forebrain bundle stimulation as a pathophysiological mechanism for hypomania in subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease. Neurosurgery. (2009 ) 64:1106–14; discussion: 1114–5.

    Not in our library10.1227/01.neu.0000345631.54446.06

  66. 66.

    Krack P Kumar R Ardouin C Dowsey PL McVicker JM Benabid AL. Mirthful laughter induced by subthalamic nucleus stimulation. Mov Disord. (2001 ) 16:867–75.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.1174

  67. 67.

    Voon V Krack P Lang AE Lozano AM Dujardin K Schüpbach M. A multicentre study on suicide outcomes following subthalamic stimulation for Parkinson's disease. Brain. (2008 ) 131:2720–8.

    Not in our library10.1093/brain/awn214

  68. 68.

    Herzog J Reiff J Krack P Witt K Schrader B Müller D. Manic episode with psychotic symptoms induced by subthalamic nucleus stimulation in a patient with Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord. (2003 ) 18:1382–4.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.10530

  69. 69.

    Eisenstein SA Koller JM Black KD Campbell MC Lugar HM Ushe M. Functional anatomy of subthalamic nucleus stimulation in Parkinson disease. Ann Neurol. (2014 ) 76:279–95.

    Not in our library10.1002/ana.24204

  70. 70.

    Voges J Volkmann J Allert N Lehrke R Koulousakis A Freund H-J. Bilateral high-frequency stimulation in the subthalamic nucleus for the treatment of Parkinson disease: correlation of therapeutic effect with anatomical electrode position. J Neurosurg. (2002 ) 96:269–79.

    Not in our library10.3171/jns.2002.96.2.0269

  71. 71.

    Godinho F Thobois S Magnin M Guenot M Polo G Benatru I. Subthalamic nucleus stimulation in Parkinson's disease: anatomical and electrophysiological localization of active contacts. J Neurol. (2006 ) 253:1347–55.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00415-006-0222-z

  72. 72.

    Hamel W Fietzek U Morsnowski A Schrader B Herzog J Weinert D. Deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus in Parkinson's disease: evaluation of active electrode contacts. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. (2003 ) 74:1036–46.

    Not in our library10.1136/jnnp.74.8.1036

  73. 73.

    Johnsen EL Sunde N Mogensen PH Ostergaard K. MRI verified STN stimulation site–gait improvement and clinical outcome. Eur J Neurol. (2010 ) 17:746–53.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1468-1331.2010.02962.x

  74. 74.

    Plaha P Ben-Shlomo Y Patel NK Gill SS. Stimulation of the caudal zona incerta is superior to stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus in improving contralateral parkinsonism. Brain. (2006 ) 129:1732–47.

    Not in our library10.1093/brain/awl127

  75. 75.

    Vergani F Landi A Antonini A Parolin M Cilia R Grimaldi M. Anatomical identification of active contacts in subthalamic deep brain stimulation. Surg Neurol. (2007 ) 67:140–6; discussion: 146–7.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.surneu.2006.06.054

  76. 76.

    Yokoyama T Sugiyama K Nishizawa S Yokota N Ohta S Akamine S. The optimal stimulation site for chronic stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus in Parkinson's disease. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. (2001 ) 77:61–7.

    Not in our library10.1159/000064598

  77. 77.

    Weise LM Seifried C Eibach S Gasser T Roeper J Seifert V. Correlation of active contact positions with the electrophysiological and anatomical subdivisions of the subthalamic nucleus in deep brain stimulation. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. (2013 ) 91:298–305.

    Not in our library10.1159/000345259

  78. 78.

    Caire F Ranoux D Guehl D Burbaud P Cuny E. A systematic review of studies on anatomical position of electrode contacts used for chronic subthalamic stimulation in Parkinson's disease. Acta Neurochir. (2013 ) 155:1647–54; discussion: 1654.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00701-013-1782-1

  79. 79.

    Tommasi G Krack P Fraix V Le Bas J-F Chabardes S Benabid AL. Pyramidal tract side effects induced by deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. (2008 ) 79:813–9.

    Not in our library10.1136/jnnp.2007.117507

  80. 80.

    Gorgulho AA Shields DC Malkasian D Behnke E Desalles AAF. Stereotactic coordinates associated with facial musculature contraction during high-frequency stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus. J Neurosurg. (2009 ) 110:1317–21.

    Not in our library10.3171/jns.2008.10.jns08835

  81. 81.

    McIntyre CC Mori S Sherman DL Thakor NV Vitek JL. Electric field and stimulating influence generated by deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus. Clin Neurophysiol. (2004 ) 115:589–95.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.clinph.2003.10.033

  82. 82.

    Leichnetz GR. The prefrontal cortico-oculomotor trajectories in the monkey. J Neurol Sci. (1981 ) 49:387–96.

    Not in our library10.1016/0022-510x(81)90029-0

  83. 83.

    Shields DC Gorgulho A Behnke E Malkasian D Desalles AAF. Contralateral conjugate eye deviation during deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus. J Neurosurg. (2007 ) 107:37–42.

    Not in our library10.3171/jns-07/07/0037

  84. 84.

    Sauleau P Pollak P Krack P Courjon J-H Vighetto A Benabid A-L. Subthalamic stimulation improves orienting gaze movements in Parkinson's disease. Clin Neurophysiol. (2008 ) 119:1857–63.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.clinph.2008.04.013

  85. 85.

    Tamma F Caputo E Chiesa V Egidi M Locatelli M Rampini P. Anatomo-clinical correlation of intraoperative stimulation-induced side-effects during HF-DBS of the subthalamic nucleus. Neurol Sci. (2002 ) 23(Suppl. 2):S109–10.

    Not in our library10.1007/s100720200093

  86. 86.

    Törnqvist G. Effect of oculomotor nerve stimulation on outflow facility and pupil diameter in a monkey (Cercopithecus ethiops). Invest Ophthalmol. (1970 ) 9:220–5.

    Not in our library

  87. 87.

    Tommasi G Krack P Fraix V Pollak P. Effects of varying subthalamic nucleus stimulation on apraxia of lid opening in Parkinson's disease. J Neurol. (2012 ) 259:1944–50.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00415-012-6447-0

  88. 88.

    Pollak P Krack P Fraix V Mendes A Moro E Chabardes S. Intraoperative micro- and macrostimulation of the subthalamic nucleus in Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord. (2002 ) 17(Suppl. 3):S155–61.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.10158

  89. 89.

    Krack P Fraix V Mendes A Benabid A-L Pollak P. Postoperative management of subthalamic nucleus stimulation for Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord. (2002 ) 17(Suppl. 3):S188–97.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.10163

  90. 90.

    Piboolnurak P Lang AE Lozano AM Miyasaki JM Saint-Cyr JA Poon Y-YW. Levodopa response in long-term bilateral subthalamic stimulation for Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord. (2007 ) 22:990–7.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.21482

  91. 91.

    Farris S Giroux M. Retrospective review of factors leading to dissatisfaction with subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation during long-term management. Surg Neurol Int. (2013 ) 4:69.

    Not in our library10.4103/2152-7806.112612

  92. 92.

    Tsuboi T Watanabe H Tanaka Y Ohdake R Yoneyama N Hara K. Distinct phenotypes of speech and voice disorders in Parkinson's disease after subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. (2015 ) 86:856–64.

    Not in our library10.1136/jnnp-2014-308043

  93. 93.

    Åström M Tripoliti E Hariz MI Zrinzo LU Martinez-Torres I Limousin P. Patient-specific model-based investigation of speech intelligibility and movement during deep brain stimulation. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. (2010 ) 88:224–33.

    Not in our library10.1159/000314357

  94. 94.

    Tripoliti E Zrinzo L Martinez-Torres I Tisch S Frost E Borrell E. Effects of contact location and voltage amplitude on speech and movement in bilateral subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation. Mov Disord. (2008 ) 23:2377–83.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.22296

  95. 95.

    Skodda S. Effect of deep brain stimulation on speech performance in Parkinson's disease. Parkinsons Dis. (2012 ) 2012:850596–10.

    Not in our library10.1155/2012/850596

  96. 96.

    Wang E Verhagen Metman L Bakay R Arzbaecher J Bernard B. The effect of unilateral electrostimulation of the subthalamic nucleus on respiratory/phonatory subsystems of speech production in Parkinson's disease–a preliminary report. Clin Linguist Phon. (2003 ) 17:283–9.

    Not in our library10.1080/0269920031000080064

  97. 97.

    Santens P De Letter M Van Borsel J De Reuck J Caemaert J. Lateralized effects of subthalamic nucleus stimulation on different aspects of speech in Parkinson's disease. Brain Lang. (2003 ) 87:253–8.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0093-934x(03)00142-1

  98. 98.

    Tripoliti E Zrinzo L Martinez-Torres I Frost E Pinto S Foltynie T. Effects of subthalamic stimulation on speech of consecutive patients with Parkinson disease. Neurology. (2011 ) 76:80–6.

    Not in our library10.1212/wnl.0b013e318203e7d0

  99. 99.

    Stefani A Lozano AM Peppe A Stanzione P Galati S Tropepi D. Bilateral deep brain stimulation of the pedunculopontine and subthalamic nuclei in severe Parkinson's disease. Brain. (2007 ) 130:1596–607.

    Not in our library10.1093/brain/awl346

  100. 100.

    Chastan N Westby GWM Yelnik J Bardinet E Do MC Agid Y. Effects of nigral stimulation on locomotion and postural stability in patients with Parkinson's disease. Brain. (2009 ) 132:172–84.

    Not in our library10.1093/brain/awn294

  101. 101.

    Weiss D Walach M Meisner C Fritz M Scholten M Breit S. Nigral stimulation for resistant axial motor impairment in Parkinson's disease? A randomized controlled trial. Brain. (2013 ) 136:2098–108.

    Not in our library10.1093/brain/awt122

  102. 102.

    Törnqvist AL Schalén L Rehncrona S. Effects of different electrical parameter settings on the intelligibility of speech in patients with Parkinson's disease treated with subthalamic deep brain stimulation. Mov Disord. (2005 ) 20:416–23.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.20348

  103. 103.

    Hammer MJ Barlow SM Lyons KE Pahwa R. Subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation changes velopharyngeal control in Parkinson's disease. J Commun Disord. (2011 ) 44:37–48.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jcomdis.2010.07.001

  104. 104.

    Benabid AL Benazzouz A Limousin P Koudsie A Krack P Piallat B. Dyskinesias and the subthalamic nucleus. Ann Neurol. (2000 ) 47:S189–92.

    Not in our library

  105. 105.

    Limousin P Pollak P Hoffmann D Benazzouz A Perret JE Benabid AL. Abnormal involuntary movements induced by subthalamic nucleus stimulation in parkinsonian patients. Mov Disord. (1996 ) 11:231–5.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.870110303

  106. 106.

    Houeto J-L Welter M-L Bejjani P-B Tezenas du Montcel S Bonnet A-M Mesnage V. Subthalamic stimulation in Parkinson disease: intraoperative predictive factors. Arch Neurol. (2003 ) 60:690–4.

    Not in our library10.1001/archneur.60.5.690

  107. 107.

    Fagbami OY Donato AA. Stridor and dysphagia associated with subthalamic nucleus stimulation in Parkinson disease. J Neurosurg. (2011 ) 115:1005–6.

    Not in our library10.3171/2011.7.jns11602

  108. 108.

    Yanase M Kataoka H Kawahara M Hirabayashi H Yamanaka T Hirano M. Fixed epiglottis associated with subthalamic nucleus stimulation in Parkinson's disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. (2008 ) 79:332–3.

    Not in our library10.1136/jnnp.2007.133280

  109. 109.

    Follett KA Weaver FM Stern M Hur K Harris CL Luo P. Pallidal versus subthalamic deep-brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease. N Engl J Med. (2010 ) 362:2077–91.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa0907083

  110. 110.

    Odekerken VJJ van Laar T Staal MJ Mosch A Hoffmann CFE Nijssen PCG. Subthalamic nucleus versus globus pallidus bilateral deep brain stimulation for advanced Parkinson's disease (NSTAPS study): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. (2013 ) 12:37–44.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1474-4422(12)70264-8

  111. 111.

    Anderson VC Burchiel KJ Hogarth P Favre J Hammerstad JP. Pallidal vs subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation in Parkinson disease. Arch Neurol. (2005 ) 62:554–60.

    Not in our library10.1001/archneur.62.4.554

  112. 112.

    Witt K Daniels C Reiff J Krack P Volkmann J Pinsker MO. Neuropsychological and psychiatric changes after deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease: a randomised, multicentre study. Lancet Neurol. (2008 ) 7:605–14.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1474-4422(08)70114-5

  113. 113.

    Zangaglia R Pacchetti C Pasotti C Mancini F Servello D Sinforiani E. Deep brain stimulation and cognitive functions in Parkinson's disease: a three-year controlled study. Mov Disord. (2009 ) 24:1621–8.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.22603

  114. 114.
    Deep brain stimulation plus best medical therapy versus best medical therapy alone for advanced Parkinson's disease (PD SURG trial): a randomised, open-label trial · 2010
    No notice
  115. 115.

    Okun MS Gallo BV Mandybur G Jagid J Foote KD Revilla FJ. Subthalamic deep brain stimulation with a constant-current device in Parkinson's disease: an open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. (2012 ) 11:140–9.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1474-4422(11)70308-8

  116. 116.

    Robertson LT Horak FB Anderson VC Burchiel KJ Hammerstad JP. Assessments of axial motor control during deep brain stimulation in parkinsonian patients. Neurosurgery. (2001 ) 48:544–51; discussion: 551–2.

    Not in our library10.1097/00006123-200103000-00017

  117. 117.

    Rizzone MG Fasano A Daniele A Zibetti M Merola A Rizzi L. Long-term outcome of subthalamic nucleus DBS in Parkinson's disease: from the advanced phase towards the late stage of the disease? Parkinsonism Relat Disord. (2014 ) 20:376–81.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.parkreldis.2014.01.012

  118. 118.

    St George RJ Nutt JG Burchiel KJ Horak FB. A meta-regression of the long-term effects of deep brain stimulation on balance and gait in PD. Neurology. (2010 ) 75:1292–9.

    Not in our library10.1212/wnl.0b013e3181f61329

  119. 119.

    Hausdorff JM Gruendlinger L Scollins L O'Herron S Tarsy D. Deep brain stimulation effects on gait variability in Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord. (2009 ) 24:1688–92.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.22554

  120. 120.

    Stolze H Klebe S Poepping M Lorenz D Herzog J Hamel W. Effects of bilateral subthalamic nucleus stimulation on parkinsonian gait. Neurology. (2001 ) 57:144–6.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00415-005-0896-7

  121. 121.

    Hamani C Richter E Schwalb JM Lozano AM. Bilateral subthalamic nucleus stimulation for Parkinson's disease: a systematic review of the clinical literature. Neurosurgery. (2008 ) 62(Suppl. 2):863–74.

    Not in our library10.1227/01.neu.0000316288.75736.1c

  122. 122.

    St George RJ Carlson-Kuhta P Nutt JG Hogarth P Burchiel KJ Horak FB. The effect of deep brain stimulation randomized by site on balance in Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord. (2014 ) 29:949–53.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.25831

  123. 123.

    Fasano A Aquino CC Krauss JK Honey CR Bloem BR. Axial disability and deep brain stimulation in patients with Parkinson disease. Nat Rev Neurol. (2015 ) 11:98–110.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrneurol.2014.252

  124. 124.

    Isler C Albi A Schaper FLWVJ Temel Y Duits A. Neuropsychological outcome in subthalamic nucleus stimulation surgeries with electrodes passing through the caudate nucleus. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. (2016 ) 94:413–20.

    Not in our library10.1159/000453278

  125. 125.

    Morishita T Okun MS Jones JD Foote KD Bowers D. Cognitive declines after deep brain stimulation are likely to be attributable to more than caudate penetration and lead location. Brain. (2014 ) 137:e274.

    Not in our library10.1093/brain/awu008

  126. 126.

    McIntyre CC Richardson SJ Frankemolle AM Varga G Noecker AM Alberts JL. Improving postural stability via computational modeling approach to deep brain stimulation programming. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. (2011 ) 2011:675–6.

    Not in our library10.1109/iembs.2011.6090151

  127. 127.

    Funkiewiez A Ardouin C Caputo E Krack P Fraix V Klinger H. Long term effects of bilateral subthalamic nucleus stimulation on cognitive function, mood, and behaviour in Parkinson's disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. (2004 ) 75:834–9.

    Not in our library10.1136/jnnp.2002.009803

  128. 128.

    Ulla M Thobois S Lemaire J-J Schmitt A Derost P Broussolle E. Manic behaviour induced by deep-brain stimulation in Parkinson's disease: evidence of substantia nigra implication? J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. (2006 ) 77:1363–6.

    Not in our library10.1136/jnnp.2006.096628

  129. 129.

    Simmons DB Dashtipour K. The quantitative measurement of reversible acute depression after subthalamic deep brain stimulation in a patient with Parkinson disease. Case Rep Neurol Med. (2015 ) 2015:165846–5.

    Not in our library10.1155/2015/165846

  130. 130.

    Tommasi G Lanotte M Albert U Zibetti M Castelli L Maina G. Transient acute depressive state induced by subthalamic region stimulation. J Neurol Sci. (2008 ) 273:135–8.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jns.2008.06.012

  131. 131.

    Bejjani BP Damier P Arnulf I Thivard L Bonnet AM Dormont D. Transient acute depression induced by high-frequency deep-brain stimulation. N Engl J Med. (1999 ) 340:1476–80.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejm199905133401905

  132. 132.

    Fasano A Appel-Cresswell S Jog M Zurowkski M Duff-Canning S Cohn M. Medical management of Parkinson's disease after initiation of deep brain stimulation. Can J Neurol Sci. (2016 ) 43:626–34.

    Not in our library10.1017/cjn.2016.274

  133. 133.

    Maier F Lewis CJ Horstkoetter N Eggers C Kalbe E Maarouf M. Patients' expectations of deep brain stimulation, and subjective perceived outcome related to clinical measures in Parkinson's disease: a mixed-method approach. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. (2013 ) 84:1273–81.

    Not in our library10.1136/jnnp-2012-303670

  134. 134.

    Tröster AI Pahwa R Fields JA Tanner CM Lyons KE. Quality of life in Essential Tremor Questionnaire (QUEST): development and initial validation. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. (2005 ) 11:367–73.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.parkreldis.2005.05.009

  135. 135.

    Chopra A Tye SJ Lee KH Sampson S Matsumoto J Adams A. Underlying neurobiology and clinical correlates of mania status after subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation in Parkinson's disease: a review of the literature. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. (2012 ) 24:102–10.

    Not in our library10.1176/appi.neuropsych.10070109

  136. 136.

    Greenhouse I Gould S Houser M Hicks G Gross J Aron AR. Stimulation at dorsal and ventral electrode contacts targeted at the subthalamic nucleus has different effects on motor and emotion functions in Parkinson's disease. Neuropsychologia. (2011 ) 49:528–34.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.12.030

  137. 137.

    Broen M Duits A Visser Vandewalle V Temel Y Winogrodzka A. Impulse control and related disorders in Parkinson's disease patients treated with bilateral subthalamic nucleus stimulation: a review. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. (2011 ) 17:413–7.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.parkreldis.2011.02.013

  138. 138.

    Ballanger B van Eimeren T Moro E Lozano AM Hamani C Boulinguez P. Stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus and impulsivity: release your horses. Ann Neurol. (2009 ) 66:817–24.

    Not in our library10.1002/ana.21795

  139. 139.

    Boller JK Barbe MT Pauls KAM Reck C Brand M Maier F. Decision-making under risk is improved by both dopaminergic medication and subthalamic stimulation in Parkinson's disease. Exper Neurol. (2014 ) 254:70–7.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.expneurol.2014.01.005

  140. 140.

    Brandt J Rogerson M Al-Joudi H Reckess G Shpritz B Umeh CC. Betting on DBS: Effects of subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation on risk taking and decision making in patients with Parkinson's disease. Neuropsychology. (2015 ) 29:622–31.

    Not in our library10.1037/neu0000164

  141. 141.

    Amami P Dekker I Piacentini S Ferré F Romito LM Franzini A. Impulse control behaviours in patients with Parkinson's disease after subthalamic deep brain stimulation: de novo cases and 3-year follow-up. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. (2015 ) 86:562–4.

    Not in our library10.1136/jnnp-2013-307214

  142. 142.

    Pallanti S Bernardi S Raglione LM Marini P Ammannati F Sorbi S. Complex repetitive behavior: punding after bilateral subthalamic nucleus stimulation in Parkinson's disease. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. (2010 ) 16:376–80.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.parkreldis.2010.02.011

  143. 143.

    Hälbig TD Tse W Frisina PG Baker BR Hollander E Shapiro H. Subthalamic deep brain stimulation and impulse control in Parkinson's disease. Eur J Neurol. (2009 ) 16:493–7.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1468-1331.2008.02509.x

  144. 144.

    Doshi P Bhargava P. Hypersexuality following subthalamic nucleus stimulation for Parkinson's disease. Neurol India. (2008 ) 56:474–6.

    Not in our library10.4103/0028-3886.44830

  145. 145.

    Ulla M Thobois S Llorca P-M Derost P Lemaire J-J Chereau-Boudet I. Contact dependent reproducible hypomania induced by deep brain stimulation in Parkinson's disease: clinical, anatomical and functional imaging study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. (2011 ) 82:607–14.

    Not in our library10.1136/jnnp.2009.199323

  146. 146.

    Smeding HMM Goudriaan AE Foncke EMJ Schuurman PR Speelman JD Schmand B. Pathological gambling after bilateral subthalamic nucleus stimulation in Parkinson disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. (2007 ) 78:517–9.

    Not in our library10.1136/jnnp.2006.102061

  147. 147.

    Funkiewiez A Ardouin C Krack P Fraix V Van Blercom N Xie J. Acute psychotropic effects of bilateral subthalamic nucleus stimulation and levodopa in Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord. (2003 ) 18:524–30.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.10441

  148. 148.

    Romito LM Raja M Daniele A Contarino MF Bentivoglio AR Barbier A. Transient mania with hypersexuality after surgery for high frequency stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus in Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord. (2002 ) 17:1371–4.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.10265

  149. 149.

    Sensi M Eleopra R Cavallo MA Sette E Milani P Quatrale R. Explosive-aggressive behavior related to bilateral subthalamic stimulation. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. (2004 ) 10:247–51.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.parkreldis.2004.01.007

  150. 150.

    Castrioto A Lhommée E Moro E Krack P. Mood and behavioural effects of subthalamic stimulation in Parkinson's disease. Lancet Neurol. (2014 ) 13:287–305.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1474-4422(13)70294-1

  151. 151.

    Mallet L Schüpbach M N'Diaye K Remy P Bardinet E Czernecki V. Stimulation of subterritories of the subthalamic nucleus reveals its role in the integration of the emotional and motor aspects of behavior. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. (2007 ) 104:10661–6.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.0610849104

  152. 152.

    Lhommée E Klinger H Thobois S Schmitt E Ardouin C Bichon A. Subthalamic stimulation in Parkinson's disease: restoring the balance of motivated behaviours. Brain. (2012 ) 135:1463–77.

    Not in our library10.1093/brain/aws078

  153. 153.

    Eusebio A Witjas T Cohen J Fluchère F Jouve E Regis J. Subthalamic nucleus stimulation and compulsive use of dopaminergic medication in Parkinson's disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. (2013 ) 84:868–74.

    Not in our library10.1136/jnnp-2012-302387

  154. 154.

    Cilia R Siri C Canesi M Zecchinelli AL De Gaspari D Natuzzi F. Dopamine dysregulation syndrome in Parkinson's disease: from clinical and neuropsychological characterisation to management and long-term outcome. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. (2014 ) 85:311–8.

    Not in our library10.1136/jnnp-2012-303988

  155. 155.

    Angeli A Mencacci NE Duran R Aviles-Olmos I Kefalopoulou Z Candelario J. Genotype and phenotype in Parkinson's disease: lessons in heterogeneity from deep brain stimulation. Mov Disord. (2013 ) 28:1370–5.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.25535

  156. 156.

    Contarino MF Daniele A Sibilia AH Romito LMA Bentivoglio AR Gainotti G. Cognitive outcome 5 years after bilateral chronic stimulation of subthalamic nucleus in patients with Parkinson's disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. (2007 ) 78:248–52.

    Not in our library10.1136/jnnp.2005.086660

  157. 157.

    Witt K Granert O Daniels C Volkmann J Falk D van Eimeren T. Relation of lead trajectory and electrode position to neuropsychological outcomes of subthalamic neurostimulation in Parkinson's disease: results from a randomized trial. Brain. (2013 ) 136:2109–19.

    Not in our library10.1093/brain/awt151

  158. 158.

    Okun MS Fernandez HH Wu SS Kirsch-Darrow L Bowers D Bova F. Cognition and mood in Parkinson's disease in subthalamic nucleus versus globus pallidus interna deep brain stimulation: the COMPARE trial. Ann Neurol. (2009 ) 65:586–95.

    Not in our library10.1002/ana.21596

  159. 159.

    Fasano A Romito LM Daniele A Piano C Zinno M Bentivoglio AR. Motor and cognitive outcome in patients with Parkinson's disease 8 years after subthalamic implants. Brain. (2010 ) 133:2664–76.

    Not in our library10.1093/brain/awq221

  160. 160.

    Parsons TD Rogers SA Braaten AJ Woods SP Tröster AI. Cognitive sequelae of subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation in Parkinson's disease: a meta-analysis. Lancet Neurol. (2006 ) 5:578–88.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1474-4422(06)70475-6

  161. 161.

    Haegelen C García-Lorenzo D Le Jeune F Péron J Gibaud B Riffaud L. SPECT and PET analysis of subthalamic stimulation in Parkinson's disease: analysis using a manual segmentation. J Neurol. (2010 ) 257:375–82.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00415-009-5327-8

  162. 162.

    Kalbe E Calabrese P Kohn N Hilker R Riedel O Wittchen H-U. Screening for cognitive deficits in Parkinson's disease with the Parkinson neuropsychometric dementia assessment (PANDA) instrument. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. (2008 ) 14:93–101.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.parkreldis.2007.06.008

  163. 163.

    Weaver FM Follett KA Stern M Luo P Harris CL Hur K. Randomized trial of deep brain stimulation for Parkinson disease: thirty-six-month outcomes. Neurology. (2012 ) 79:55–65.

    Not in our library10.1212/wnl.0b013e31825dcdc1

  164. 164.

    Volkmann J Daniels C Witt K. Neuropsychiatric effects of subthalamic neurostimulation in Parkinson disease. Nat Rev Neurol. (2010 ) 6:487–98.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrneurol.2010.111

  165. 165.

    Volkmann J Fogel W Krack P Postoperatives neurologisches management bei stimulation des nucleus subthalamicus. Aktuelle Neurologie. (2008 ) 27:S23–39.

    Not in our library10.1055/s-2007-1017592

  166. 166.

    Fasano A Herzog J Seifert E Stolze H Falk D Reese R. Modulation of gait coordination by subthalamic stimulation improves freezing of gait. Mov Disord. (2011 ) 26:844–51.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.23583

  167. 167.

    Eitan R Shamir RR Linetsky E Rosenbluh O Moshel S Ben-Hur T. Asymmetric right/left encoding of emotions in the human subthalamic nucleus. Front Syst Neurosci. (2013 ) 7:69.

    Not in our library10.3389/fnsys.2013.00069

  168. 168.

    Grant PF Lowery MM. Effect of dispersive conductivity and permittivity in volume conductor models of deep brain stimulation. IEEE Trans Bio Med Eng. (2010 ) 57:2386–93.

    Not in our library10.1109/tbme.2010.2055054

  169. 169.

    Gabriel S Lau RW Gabriel C. The dielectric properties of biological tissues: III. Parametric models for the dielectric spectrum of tissues. Phys Med Biol. (1996 ) 41:2271–93.

    Not in our library10.1088/0031-9155/41/11/003

  170. 170.

    Foster KR Schwan HP. Dielectric properties of tissues and biological materials: a critical review. Crit Rev Biomed Eng. (1989 ) 17:25–104.

    Not in our library

  171. 171.

    Latikka J Kuurne T Eskola H. Conductivity of living intracranial tissues. Phys Med Biol. (2001 ) 46:1611–6.

    Not in our library10.1088/0031-9155/46/6/302

  172. 172.

    Baumann CR Imbach LL Baumann-Vogel H Uhl M Sarnthein J Sürücü O. Interleaving deep brain stimulation for a patient with both Parkinson's disease and essential tremor. Mov Disord. (2012 ) 27:1700–1.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.25221

  173. 173.

    Wojtecki L Vesper J Schnitzler A. Interleaving programming of subthalamic deep brain stimulation to reduce side effects with good motor outcome in a patient with Parkinson's disease. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. (2011 ) 17:293–4.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.parkreldis.2010.12.005

  174. 174.

    Herzog J Pinsker M Wasner M Steigerwald F Wailke S Deuschl G. Stimulation of subthalamic fibre tracts reduces dyskinesias in STN-DBS. Mov Disord. (2007 ) 22:679–84.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.21387

  175. 175.

    Burrows AM Ravin PD Novak P Peters MLB Dessureau B Swearer J. Limbic and motor function comparison of deep brain stimulation of the zona incerta and subthalamic nucleus. Neurosurgery. (2012 ) 70:125–30; discussion: 130–1.

    Not in our library10.1227/neu.0b013e318232fdac

  176. 176.

    Ricciardi L Morgante L Epifanio A Zibetti M Lanotte M Lopiano L. Stimulation of the subthalamic area modulating movement and behavior. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. (2014 ) 20:1298–300.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.parkreldis.2014.07.013

  177. 177.

    Ramirez-Zamora A Kahn M Campbell J DeLaCruz P Pilitsis JG. Interleaved programming of subthalamic deep brain stimulation to avoid adverse effects and preserve motor benefit in Parkinson's disease. J Neurol. (2015 ) 262:578–84.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00415-014-7605-3

  178. 178.

    Kern DS Picillo M Thompson JA Sammartino F di Biase L Munhoz RP. Interleaving stimulation in Parkinson's disease, tremor, and dystonia. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. (2019 ) 96:379–91.

    Not in our library10.1159/000494983

  179. 179.

    Hariz M Blomstedt P Zrinzo L. Future of brain stimulation: new targets, new indications, new technology. Mov Disord. (2013 ) 28:1784–92.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.25665

  180. 180.

    Stefani A Peppe A Pierantozzi M Galati S Moschella V Stanzione P. Multi-target strategy for Parkinsonian patients: the role of deep brain stimulation in the centromedian-parafascicularis complex. Brain Res Bull. (2009 ) 78:113–8.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.brainresbull.2008.08.007

  181. 181.

    Almeida L Rawal PV Ditty B Smelser BL Huang H Okun MS. Deep brain stimulation battery longevity: comparison of monopolar versus bipolar stimulation modes. Move Dis Clin Pract. (2016 ) 3:359–66.

    Not in our library10.1002/mdc3.12285

  182. 182.

    Bouthour W Wegrzyk J Momjian S Péron J Fleury V Tomkova Chaoui E. Short pulse width in subthalamic stimulation in Parkinson's disease: a randomized, double-blind study. Mov Disord. (2017 ) 33:169–73.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.27265

  183. 183.

    Reich MM Steigerwald F Sawalhe AD Reese R Gunalan K Johannes S Short pulse width widens the therapeutic window of subthalamic neurostimulation. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. (2015 ) 2:427–32.

    Not in our library10.1002/acn3.168

  184. 184.

    Holsheimer J Demeulemeester H Nuttin B de Sutter P. Identification of the target neuronal elements in electrical deep brain stimulation. Eur J Neurosci. (2000 ) 12:4573–7.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1460-9568.2000.01306.x

  185. 185.

    Garcia L D'Alessandro G Bioulac B Hammond C High-frequency stimulation in Parkinson's disease: more or less? Trends Neurosci. (2005 ) 28:209–16.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.tins.2005.02.005

  186. 186.

    Garcia L D'Alessandro G Fernagut P-O Bioulac B Hammond C. Impact of high-frequency stimulation parameters on the pattern of discharge of subthalamic neurons. J Neurophysiol. (2005 ) 94:3662–9.

    Not in our library10.1152/jn.00496.2005

  187. 187.

    Ferraye MU Debû B Fraix V Goetz L Ardouin C Yelnik J. Effects of pedunculopontine nucleus area stimulation on gait disorders in Parkinson's disease. Brain. (2010 ) 133:205–14.

    Not in our library10.1093/brain/awp229

  188. 188.

    Vercruysse S Vandenberghe W Münks L Nuttin B Devos H Nieuwboer A. Effects of deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus on freezing of gait in Parkinson's disease: a prospective controlled study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. (2014 ) 85:871–7.

    Not in our library10.1136/jnnp-2013-306336

  189. 189.

    Schlenstedt C Shalash A Muthuraman M Falk D Witt K Deuschl G. Effect of high-frequency subthalamic neurostimulation on gait and freezing of gait in Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Neurol. (2017 ) 24:18–26.

    Not in our library10.1111/ene.13167

  190. 190.

    Xie T Kang UJ Warnke P. Effect of stimulation frequency on immediate freezing of gait in newly activated STN DBS in Parkinson's disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. (2012 ) 83:1015–7.

    Not in our library10.1136/jnnp-2011-302091

  191. 191.

    Ramdhani RA Patel A Swope D Kopell BH. Early use of 60 Hz frequency subthalamic stimulation in Parkinson's disease: a case series and review. Neuromodulation. (2015 ) 18:664–69.

    Not in our library10.1111/ner.12288

  192. 192.

    Fietzek UM Zwosta J Schroeteler FE Ziegler K Ceballos-Baumann AO. Levodopa changes the severity of freezing in Parkinson's disease. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. (2013 ) 19:894–6.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.parkreldis.2013.04.004

  193. 193.

    Chan CS Guzman JN Ilijic E Mercer JN Rick C Tkatch T. “Rejuvenation” protects neurons in mouse models of Parkinson's disease. Nature. (2007 ) 447:1081–6.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature05865

  194. 194.

    Moreau C Delval A Defebvre L Dujardin K Duhamel A Petyt G. Methylphenidate for gait hypokinesia and freezing in patients with Parkinson's disease undergoing subthalamic stimulation: a multicentre, parallel, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. (2012 ) 11:589–96.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1474-4422(12)70106-0

  195. 195.

    Moreau C Defebvre L Destee A Bleuse S Clement F Blatt JL. STN-DBS frequency effects on freezing of gait in advanced Parkinson disease. Neurology. (2008 ) 71:80–4.

    Not in our library10.1212/01.wnl.0000303972.16279.46

  196. 196.

    Moreau C Pennel-Ployart O Pinto S Plachez A Annic A Viallet F. Modulation of dysarthropneumophonia by low-frequency STN DBS in advanced Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord. (2011 ) 26:659–63.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.23538

  197. 197.

    Xie T Vigil J MacCracken E Gasparaitis A Young J Kang W. Low-frequency stimulation of STN-DBS reduces aspiration and freezing of gait in patients with PD. Neurology. (2015 ) 84:415–20.

    Not in our library10.1212/wnl.0000000000001184

  198. 198.

    Khoo HM Kishima H Hosomi K Maruo T Tani N Oshino S Low-frequency subthalamic nucleus stimulation in Parkinson's disease: a randomized clinical trial. Mov Disord. (2014 ) 29:270–4.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.25810

  199. 199.

    Brozova H Barnaure I Alterman RL Tagliati M. STN-DBS frequency effects on freezing of gait in advanced Parkinson disease. Neurology. (2009 ) 72:770; author reply: 770–1.

    Not in our library10.1212/01.wnl.0000339385.187472.7d

  200. 200.

    Phibbs FT Arbogast PG Davis TL. 60-Hz frequency effect on gait in Parkinson's disease with subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation. Neuromodulation. (2014 ) 17:717–20; discussion: 720.

    Not in our library10.1111/ner.12131

  201. 201.

    Sidiropoulos C Walsh R Meaney C Poon YY Fallis M Moro E. Low-frequency subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation for axial symptoms in advanced Parkinson's disease. J Neurol. (2013 ) 260:2306–11.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00415-013-6983-2

  202. 202.

    Vallabhajosula S Haq IU Hwynn N Oyama G Okun M Tillman MD. Low-frequency versus high-frequency subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation on postural control and gait in Parkinson's disease: a quantitative study. Brain Stimul. (2015 ) 8:64–75.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.brs.2014.10.011

  203. 203.

    Stegemöller EL Vallabhajosula S Haq I Hwynn N Hass CJ Okun MS. Selective use of low frequency stimulation in Parkinson's disease based on absence of tremor. NeuroRehabilitation. (2013 ) 33:305–12.

    Not in our library10.3233/nre-130960

  204. 204.

    Ricchi V Zibetti M Angrisano S Merola A Arduino N Artusi CA. Transient effects of 80 Hz stimulation on gait in STN DBS treated PD patients: a 15 months follow-up study. Brain Stimul. (2012 ) 5:388–92.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.brs.2011.07.001

  205. 205.

    Xie T Padmanaban M Bloom L MacCracken E Bertacchi B Dachman A. Effect of low versus high frequency stimulation on freezing of gait and other axial symptoms in Parkinson patients with bilateral STN DBS: a mini-review. Transl Neurodegener. (2017 ) 6:13.

    Not in our library10.1186/s40035-017-0083-7

  206. 206.

    Huang H Watts RL Montgomery EB. Effects of deep brain stimulation frequency on bradykinesia of Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord. (2014 ) 29:203–6.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.25773

  207. 207.

    Wojtecki L Timmermann L Jörgens S Südmeyer M Maarouf M Treuer H. Frequency-dependent reciprocal modulation of verbal fluency and motor functions in subthalamic deep brain stimulation. Arch Neurol. (2006 ) 63:1273–6.

    Not in our library10.1001/archneur.63.9.1273

  208. 208.

    Mazzone P Lozano A Stanzione P Galati S Scarnati E Peppe A. Implantation of human pedunculopontine nucleus: a safe and clinically relevant target in Parkinson??s disease. Neuroreport. (2005 ) 16:1877–81.

    Not in our library10.1097/01.wnr.0000187629.38010.12

  209. 209.

    Golestanirad L Elahi B Graham SJ Das S Wald LL. Efficacy and safety of Pedunculopontine Nuclei (PPN) deep brain stimulation in the treatment of gait disorders: a meta-analysis of clinical studies. Can J Neurol Sci. (2016 ) 43:120–6.

    Not in our library10.1017/cjn.2015.318

  210. 210.

    Windels F Thevathasan W Silburn P Sah P. Where and what is the PPN and what is its role in locomotion? Brain. (2015 ) 138:1133–4.

    Not in our library10.1093/brain/awv059

  211. 211.

    Schrader C Seehaus F Capelle HH Windhagen A Windhagen H Krauss JK. Effects of pedunculopontine area and pallidal DBS on gait ignition in Parkinson's disease. Brain Stimul. (2013 ) 6:856–9.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.brs.2013.05.005

  212. 212.

    Khan S Mooney L Plaha P Javed S White P Whone AL. Outcomes from stimulation of the caudal zona incerta and pedunculopontine nucleus in patients with Parkinson's disease. Br J Neurosurg. (2011 ) 25:273–80.

    Not in our library10.3109/02688697.2010.544790

  213. 213.

    Wang J-W Zhang Y-Q Zhang X-H Wang Y-P Li J-P Li Y-J. Deep brain stimulation of pedunculopontine nucleus for postural instability and gait disorder after parkinson disease: a meta-analysis of individual patient data. World Neurosurg. (2017 ) 102:72–8.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.wneu.2017.02.110

  214. 214.

    Fournier-Gosselin M-P Lipsman N Saint-Cyr JA Hamani C Lozano AM. Regional anatomy of the pedunculopontine nucleus: relevance for deep brain stimulation. Mov Disord. (2013 ) 28:1330–6.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.25620

  215. 215.
    Pedunculopontine nucleus stimulation: Where are we now and what needs to be done to move the field forward? · 2014
    Not checked
  216. 216.

    Thevathasan W Debû B Aziz T Bloem BR Blahak C Butson C. Pedunculopontine nucleus deep brain stimulation in Parkinson's disease: A clinical review. Mov Disord. (2017 ) 33:10–20.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.27098

  217. 217.

    Moro E Hamani C Poon Y-Y Al-Khairallah T Dostrovsky JO Hutchison WD. Unilateral pedunculopontine stimulation improves falls in Parkinson's disease. Brain. (2010 ) 133:215–24.

    Not in our library10.1093/brain/awp261

  218. 218.

    Brosius SN Gonzalez CL Shuresh J Walker HC. Reversible improvement in severe freezing of gait from Parkinson's disease with unilateral interleaved subthalamic brain stimulation. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. (2015 ) 21:1469–70.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.parkreldis.2015.09.047

  219. 219.

    Koss AM Alterman RL Tagliati M Shils JL. Calculating total electrical energy delivered by deep brain stimulation systems. Ann Neurol. (2005 ) 58:168; author reply: 168–9.

    Not in our library10.1002/ana.20525

  220. 220.

    Merola A Zibetti M Artusi CA Rizzi L Angrisano S Lanotte M. 80 Hz versus 130 Hz subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation: effects on involuntary movements. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. (2013 ) 19:453–6.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.parkreldis.2013.01.006

  221. 221.

    Katayama Y Oshima H Kano T Kobayashi K Fukaya C Yamamoto T. Direct effect of subthalamic nucleus stimulation on levodopa-induced peak-dose dyskinesia in patients with Parkinson's disease. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. (2006 ) 84:176–9.

    Not in our library10.1159/000094957

  222. 222.

    Herzog J Pogarell O Pinsker MO Kupsch A Oertel WH Lindvall O. Deep brain stimulation in Parkinson's disease following fetal nigral transplantation. Mov Disord. (2008 ) 23:1293–6.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.21768

  223. 223.

    Maltête D Derrey S Chastan N Debono B Gérardin E Fréger P. Microsubthalamotomy: an immediate predictor of long-term subthalamic stimulation efficacy in Parkinson disease. Mov Disord. (2008 ) 23:1047–50.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.22054

  224. 224.

    Singh A Kammermeier S Mehrkens J-H Bötzel K. Movement kinematic after deep brain stimulation associated microlesions. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. (2012 ) 83:1022–6.

    Not in our library10.1136/jnnp-2012-302309

  225. 225.

    Witt K Daniels C Herzog J Lorenz D Volkmann J Reiff J. Differential effects of L-dopa and subthalamic stimulation on depressive symptoms and hedonic tone in Parkinson's disease. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. (2006 ) 18:397–401.

    Not in our library10.1176/jnp.2006.18.3.397

  226. 226.

    Thobois S Ardouin C Lhommée E Klinger H Lagrange C Xie J. Non-motor dopamine withdrawal syndrome after surgery for Parkinson's disease: predictors and underlying mesolimbic denervation. Brain. (2010 ) 133:1111–27.

    Not in our library10.1093/brain/awq032

  227. 227.

    Czernecki V Schüpbach M Yaici S Lévy R Bardinet E Yelnik J. Apathy following subthalamic stimulation in Parkinson disease: a dopamine responsive symptom. Mov Disord. (2008 ) 23:964–9.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.21949

  228. 228.

    Russmann H Ghika J Combrement P Villemure J-G Bogousslavsky J Burkhard PR. L-dopa-induced dyskinesia improvement after STN-DBS depends upon medication reduction. Neurology. (2004 ) 63:153–5.

    Not in our library10.1212/01.wnl.0000131910.72829.9d

  229. 229.

    Moro E Esselink RJA Benabid A-L Pollak P. Response to levodopa in parkinsonian patients with bilateral subthalamic nucleus stimulation. Brain. (2002 ) 125:2408–17.

    Not in our library10.1093/brain/awf249

  230. 230.

    Lempka SF Miocinovic S Johnson MD Vitek JL McIntyre CC. In vivo impedance spectroscopy of deep brain stimulation electrodes. J Neural Eng. (2009 ) 6:046001.

    Not in our library10.1088/1741-2560/6/4/046001

  231. 231.

    Beaulieu-Boire I Fasano A. Current or voltage? Another Shakespearean dilemma. Eur J Neurol. (2015 ) 22:887–8.

    Not in our library10.1111/ene.12537

  232. 232.

    Maks CB Butson CR Walter BL Vitek JL McIntyre CC. Deep brain stimulation activation volumes and their association with neurophysiological mapping and therapeutic outcomes. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. (2009 ) 80:659–66.

    Not in our library10.1136/jnnp.2007.126219

  233. 233.

    Lempka SF Johnson MD Miocinovic S Vitek JL McIntyre CC. Current-controlled deep brain stimulation reduces in vivo voltage fluctuations observed during voltage-controlled stimulation. Clin Neurophysiol. (2010 ) 121:2128–33.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.clinph.2010.04.026

  234. 234.

    Benabid AL Pollak P Gao D Hoffmann D Limousin P Gay E. Chronic electrical stimulation of the ventralis intermedius nucleus of the thalamus as a treatment of movement disorders. J Neurosurg. (1996 ) 84:203–14.

    Not in our library10.3171/jns.1996.84.2.0203

  235. 235.

    Sillay KA Chen JC Montgomery EB. Long-term measurement of therapeutic electrode impedance in deep brain stimulation. Neuromodulation. (2010 ) 13:195–200.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1525-1403.2010.00275.x

  236. 236.

    Hemm S Vayssiere N Mennessier G Cif L Zanca M Ravel P. Evolution of brain impedance in dystonic patients treated by GPI electrical stimulation. Neuromodulation. (2004 ) 7:67–75.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1094-7159.2004.04009.x

  237. 237.

    Cheung T Nuño M Hoffman M Katz M Kilbane C Alterman R. Longitudinal impedance variability in patients with chronically implanted DBS devices. Brain Stimul. (2013 ) 6:746–51.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.brs.2013.03.010

  238. 238.

    Ramirez de Noriega F Eitan R Marmor O Lavi A Linetzky E Bergman H. Constant current versus constant voltage subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation in Parkinson's disease. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. (2015 ) 93:114–21.

    Not in our library10.1159/000368443

  239. 239.

    Preda F Cavandoli C Lettieri C Pilleri M Antonini A Eleopra R. Switching from constant voltage to constant current in deep brain stimulation: a multicenter experience of mixed implants for movement disorders. Eur J Neurol. (2016 ) 23:190–5.

    Not in our library10.1111/ene.12835

  240. 240.

    Lettieri C Rinaldo S Devigili G Pisa F Mucchiut M Belgrado E. Clinical outcome of deep brain stimulation for dystonia: constant-current or constant-voltage stimulation? A non-randomized study. Eur J Neurol. (2015 ) 22:919–26.

    Not in our library10.1111/ene.12515

  241. 241.

    Bronstein JM Tagliati M McIntyre C Chen R Cheung T Hargreaves EL. The rationale driving the evolution of deep brain stimulation to constant-current devices. Neuromodulation. (2015 ) 18:85–8; discussion: 88–9.

    Not in our library10.1111/ner.12227

  242. 242.

    Barow E Neumann W-J Brücke C Huebl J Horn A Brown P. Deep brain stimulation suppresses pallidal low frequency activity in patients with phasic dystonic movements. Brain. (2014 ) 137:3012–24.

    Not in our library10.1093/brain/awu258

  243. 243.

    Dowsey-Limousin P. Postoperative management of Vim DBS for tremor. Mov Disord. (2002 ) 17(Suppl. 3):S208–11.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.10165

  244. 244.

    Earhart GM Hong M Tabbal SD Perlmutter JS. Effects of thalamic stimulation frequency on intention and postural tremor. Exp Neurol. (2007 ) 208:257–63.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.expneurol.2007.08.014

  245. 245.

    Ushe M Mink JW Revilla FJ Wernle A Schneider Gibson P McGee-Minnich L. Effect of stimulation frequency on tremor suppression in essential tremor. Mov Disord. (2004 ) 19:1163–8.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.20231

  246. 246.

    Ushe M Mink JW Tabbal SD Hong M Schneider Gibson P Rich KM. Postural tremor suppression is dependent on thalamic stimulation frequency. Mov Disord. (2006 ) 21:1290–2.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.20926

  247. 247.

    O'Suilleabhain PE Frawley W Giller C Dewey RB. Tremor response to polarity, voltage, pulsewidth and frequency of thalamic stimulation. Neurology. (2003 ) 60:786–90.

    Not in our library10.1212/01.wnl.0000044156.56643.74

  248. 248.

    Moldovan A-S Hartmann CJ Trenado C Meumertzheim N Slotty PJ Vesper J Less is more - Pulse width dependent therapeutic window in deep brain stimulation for essential tremor. Brain Stimul. (2018 ) 1:1132–9.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.brs.2018.04.019

  249. 249.

    Groppa S Herzog J Falk D Riedel C Deuschl G Volkmann J. Physiological and anatomical decomposition of subthalamic neurostimulation effects in essential tremor. Brain. (2014 ) 137:109–121.

    Not in our library10.1093/brain/awt304

  250. 250.

    Herzog J Hamel W Wenzelburger R Pötter M Pinsker MO Bartussek J. Kinematic analysis of thalamic versus subthalamic neurostimulation in postural and intention tremor. Brain. (2007 ) 130:1608–25.

    Not in our library10.1093/brain/awm077

  251. 251.

    Fytagoridis A Sandvik U Åström M Bergenheim T Blomstedt P. Long term follow-up of deep brain stimulation of the caudal zona incerta for essential tremor. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. (2012 ) 83:258–62.

    Not in our library10.1136/jnnp-2011-300765

  252. 252.

    Blomstedt P Sandvik U Tisch S. Deep brain stimulation in the posterior subthalamic area in the treatment of essential tremor. Mov Disord. (2010 ) 25:1350–6.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.22758

  253. 253.

    Plaha P Javed S Agombar D O' Farrell G Khan S Whone A Gill S. Bilateral caudal zona incerta nucleus stimulation for essential tremor: outcome and quality of life. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. (2011 ) 82:899–904.

    Not in our library10.1136/jnnp.2010.222992

  254. 254.

    Koller W Pahwa R Busenbark K Hubble J Wilkinson S Lang A. High-frequency unilateral thalamic stimulation in the treatment of essential and parkinsonian tremor. Ann Neurol. (1997 ) 42:292–9.

    Not in our library10.1002/ana.410420304

  255. 255.

    Baizabal-Carvallo JF Kagnoff MN Jimenez-Shahed J Fekete R Jankovic J. The safety and efficacy of thalamic deep brain stimulation in essential tremor: 10 years and beyond. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. (2014 ) 85:567–72.

    Not in our library10.1136/jnnp-2013-304943

  256. 256.

    Barbe MT Pochmann J Lewis CJ Allert N Wirths J Visser Vandewalle V. Utilization of predefined stimulation groups by essential tremor patients treated with VIM-DBS. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. (2014 ) 20:1415–8.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.parkreldis.2014.09.021

  257. 257.

    Mücke D Becker J Barbe MT Meister I Liebhart L Roettger TB. The effect of deep brain stimulation on the speech motor system. J Speech Lang Hear Res. (2014 ) 57:1206–18.

    Not in our library10.1044/2014_jslhr-s-13-0155

  258. 258.

    Fasano A Herzog J Raethjen J Rose FEM Muthuraman M Volkmann J. Gait ataxia in essential tremor is differentially modulated by thalamic stimulation. Brain. (2010 ) 133:3635–48.

    Not in our library10.1093/brain/awq267

  259. 259.

    Kronenbuerger M Konczak J Ziegler W Buderath P Frank B Coenen VA. Balance and motor speech impairment in essential tremor. Cerebellum. (2009 ) 8:389–98.

    Not in our library10.1007/s12311-009-0111-y

  260. 260.

    Earhart GM Clark BR Tabbal SD Perlmutter JS. Gait and balance in essential tremor: variable effects of bilateral thalamic stimulation. Mov Disord. (2009 ) 24:386–91.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.22356

  261. 261.

    Hopfner F Deuschl G. Is essential tremor a single entity? Eur J Neurol. (2018 ) 25:71–82.

    Not in our library10.1111/ene.13454

  262. 262.

    Yamamoto T Katayama Y Kano T Kobayashi K Oshima H Fukaya C. Deep brain stimulation for the treatment of parkinsonian, essential, and poststroke tremor: a suitable stimulation method and changes in effective stimulation intensity. J Neurosurg. (2004 ) 101:201–9.

    Not in our library10.3171/jns.2004.101.2.0201

  263. 263.

    Pilitsis JG Metman LV Toleikis JR Hughes LE Sani SB Bakay RAE. Factors involved in long-term efficacy of deep brain stimulation of the thalamus for essential tremor. J Neurosurg. (2008 ) 109:640–6.

    Not in our library10.3171/jns/2008/109/10/0640

  264. 264.

    Zhang K Bhatia S Oh MY Cohen D Angle C Whiting D. Long-term results of thalamic deep brain stimulation for essential tremor. J Neurosurg. (2010 ) 112:1271–6.

    Not in our library10.3171/2009.10.jns09371

  265. 265.

    Barbe MT Liebhart L Runge M Pauls KAM Wojtecki L Schnitzler A. Deep brain stimulation in the nucleus ventralis intermedius in patients with essential tremor: habituation of tremor suppression. J Neurol. (2011 ) 258:434–9.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00415-010-5773-3

  266. 266.

    Hariz G-M Blomstedt P Koskinen L-OD. Long-term effect of deep brain stimulation for essential tremor on activities of daily living and health-related quality of life. Acta Neurol Scand. (2008 ) 118:387–94.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1600-0404.2008.01065.x

  267. 267.

    Limousin P Speelman JD Gielen F Janssens M study collaborators. Multicentre European study of thalamic stimulation in parkinsonian and essential tremor. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. (1999 ) 66:289–96.

    Not in our library10.1136/jnnp.66.3.289

  268. 268.

    Koller WC Lyons KE Wilkinson SB Troster AI Pahwa R. Long-term safety and efficacy of unilateral deep brain stimulation of the thalamus in essential tremor. Mov Disord. (2001 ) 16:464–8.

    Not in our library10.1136/jnnp.71.5.682

  269. 269.

    Martinez-Ramirez D Morishita T Zeilman PR Peng-Chen Z Foote KD Okun MS. Atrophy and other potential factors affecting long term deep brain stimulation response: a case series. PLoS ONE. (2014 ) 9:e111561.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0111561

  270. 270.

    Favilla CG Ullman D Wagle Shukla A Foote KD Jacobson CE Okun MS. Worsening essential tremor following deep brain stimulation: disease progression versus tolerance. Brain. (2012 ) 135:1455–62.

    Not in our library10.1093/brain/aws026

  271. 271.

    Garcia Ruiz P Muñiz de Igneson J Lopez Ferro O Martin C Magariños Ascone C. Deep brain stimulation holidays in essential tremor. J Neurol. (2001 ) 248:725–6.

    Not in our library10.1007/s004150170127

  272. 272.

    Eltahawy HA Saint-Cyr J Giladi N Lang AE Lozano AM Primary dystonia is more responsive than secondary dystonia to pallidal interventions: outcome after pallidotomy or pallidal deep brain stimulation. Neurosurgery. (2004 ) 54:613–19; discussion: 619–21.

    Not in our library10.1227/01.neu.0000108643.94730.21

  273. 273.

    Vidailhet M Vercueil L Houeto J-L Krystkowiak P Benabid A-L Cornu P. Bilateral deep-brain stimulation of the globus pallidus in primary generalized dystonia. N Engl J Med. (2005 ) 352:459–67.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa042187

  274. 274.

    Vidailhet M Yelnik J Lagrange C Fraix V Grabli D Thobois S. Bilateral pallidal deep brain stimulation for the treatment of patients with dystonia-choreoathetosis cerebral palsy: a prospective pilot study. Lancet Neurol. (2009 ) 8:709–17.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1474-4422(09)70151-6

  275. 275.

    Picillo M Pellecchia MT Vitale C Barone P Amboni M. Pallidal stimulation in atypical pantothenate kinase-associated neurodegeneration: six-year follow-up. Mov Disord. (2014 ) 29:276–7.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.25709

  276. 276.

    Krauss JK Yianni J Loher TJ Aziz TZ Deep brain stimulation for dystonia. J Clin Neurophysiol. (2004 ) 21:18–30.

    Not in our library10.1097/00004691-200401000-00004

  277. 277.

    Kupsch A Benecke R Müller J Trottenberg T Schneider G-H Poewe W Pallidal deep-brain stimulation in primary generalized or segmental dystonia. N Engl J Med. (2006 ) 355:1978–90.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa063618

  278. 278.

    Grips E Blahak C Capelle H-H Bäzner H Weigel R Sedlaczek O. Patterns of reoccurrence of segmental dystonia after discontinuation of deep brain stimulation. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. (2007 ) 78:318–20.

    Not in our library10.1136/jnnp.2006.089409

  279. 279.

    Cheung T Zhang C Rudolph J Alterman RL Tagliati M. Sustained relief of generalized dystonia despite prolonged interruption of deep brain stimulation. Mov Disord. (2013 ) 28:1431–4.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.25353

  280. 280.

    Grabli D Ewenczyk C Coelho Braga MC Lagrange C Fraix V Cornu P. Interruption of deep brain stimulation of the globus pallidus in primary generalized dystonia. Mov Disord. (2009 ) 24:2363–9.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.22827

  281. 281.

    Levin J Singh A Feddersen B Mehrkens J-H Bötzel K. Onset latency of segmental dystonia after deep brain stimulation cessation: a randomized, double-blind crossover trial. Mov Disord. (2013 ) 29:944–9.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.25780

  282. 282.

    Yianni J Bain PG Gregory RP Nandi D Joint C Scott RB. Post-operative progress of dystonia patients following globus pallidus internus deep brain stimulation. Eur J Neurol. (2003 ) 10:239–47.

    Not in our library10.1046/j.1468-1331.2003.00592.x

  283. 283.

    Trottenberg T Meissner W Kabus C Arnold G Funk T Einhaupl KM. Neurostimulation of the ventral intermediate thalamic nucleus in inherited myoclonus-dystonia syndrome. Mov Disord. (2001 ) 16:769–71.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.1119

  284. 284.

    Kumar R. Methods for programming and patient management with deep brain stimulation of the globus pallidus for the treatment of advanced Parkinson's disease and dystonia. Mov Disord. (2002 ) 17(Suppl. 3):S198–207.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.10164

  285. 285.

    Cheung T Noecker AM Alterman RL McIntyre CC Tagliati M. Defining a therapeutic target for pallidal deep brain stimulation for dystonia. Ann Neurol. (2014 ) 76:22–30.

    Not in our library10.1002/ana.24187

  286. 286.

    Rozanski VE da Silva NM Ahmadi S-A Mehrkens J da Silva Cunha J Houde J-C. The role of the pallidothalamic fibre tracts in deep brain stimulation for dystonia: a diffusion MRI tractography study. Hum Brain Mapp. (2017 ) 38:1224–32.

    Not in our library10.1002/hbm.23450

  287. 287.

    Tisch S Zrinzo L Limousin P Bhatia KP Quinn N Ashkan K. Effect of electrode contact location on clinical efficacy of pallidal deep brain stimulation in primary generalised dystonia. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. (2007 ) 78:1314–9.

    Not in our library10.1136/jnnp.2006.109694

  288. 288.

    Kupsch A Tagliati M Vidailhet M Aziz T Krack P Moro E. Early postoperative management of DBS in dystonia: programming, response to stimulation, adverse events, medication changes, evaluations, and troubleshooting. Mov Disord. (2011 ) 26(Suppl. 1):S37–53.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.23624

  289. 289.

    Kupsch A Klaffke S Kühn AA Meissner W Arnold G Schneider G-H. The effects of frequency in pallidal deep brain stimulation for primary dystonia. J Neurol. (2003 ) 250:1201–5.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00415-003-0179-0

  290. 290.

    Alterman RL Shils JL Miravite J Tagliati M. Lower stimulation frequency can enhance tolerability and efficacy of pallidal deep brain stimulation for dystonia. Mov Disord. (2007 ) 22:366–8.

    Not in our library10.1002/mds.21274

  291. 291.

    Moro E Piboolnurak P Arenovich T Hung SW Poon YY Lozano AM. Pallidal stimulation in cervical dystonia: clinical implications of acute changes in stimulation parameters. Eur J Neurol. (2009 ) 16:506–12.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1468-1331.2008.02520.x

  292. 292.

    Coubes P Cif L Fertit El H Hemm S Vayssiere N Serrat S. Electrical stimulation of the globus pallidus internus in patients with primary generalized dystonia: long-term results. J Neurosurg. (2004 ) 101:189–94.

    Not in our library10.3171/jns.2004.101.2.0189

  293. 293.

    Vercueil L Houeto J-L Krystkowiak P Lagrange C Cassim F Benazzouz A. Effects of pulse width variations in pallidal stimulation for primary generalized dystonia. J Neurol. (2007 ) 254:1533–7.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00415-007-0578-8

  294. 294.

    Ostrem JL Markun LC Glass GA Racine CA Volz MM Heath SL. Effect of frequency on subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation in primary dystonia. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. (2014 ) 20:432–8.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.parkreldis.2013.12.012

  295. 295.

    Zauber SE Watson N Comella CL Bakay RAE Metman LV. Stimulation-induced parkinsonism after posteroventral deep brain stimulation of the globus pallidus internus for craniocervical dystonia. J Neurosurg. (2009 ) 110:229–33.

    Not in our library10.3171/2008.6.17621

  296. 296.

    Berman BD Starr PA Marks WJ Ostrem JL. Induction of bradykinesia with pallidal deep brain stimulation in patients with cranial-cervical dystonia. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. (2009 ) 87:37–44.

    Not in our library10.1159/000195718

  297. 297.

    Brecl Jakob G Pelykh O Košutzká Z Pirtošek Z Trošt M Ilmberger J. Postural stability under globus pallidus internus stimulation for dystonia. Clin Neurophysiol. (2015 ) 126:2299–305.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.clinph.2015.01.022

  298. 298.

    Krack P Pollak P Limousin P Hoffmann D Benazzouz A Le Bas J-F. Opposite motor effects of pallidal stimulation in Parkinson's disease. Ann Neurol. (1998 ) 43:180–92.

    Not in our library10.1002/ana.410430208

  299. 299.

    Schrader C Capelle H-H Kinfe TM Blahak C Bäzner H Lütjens G. GPi-DBS may induce a hypokinetic gait disorder with freezing of gait in patients with dystonia. Neurology. (2011 ) 77:483–8.

    Not in our library10.1212/wnl.0b013e318227b19e

  300. 300.

    Blahak C Capelle H-H Baezner H Kinfe TM Hennerici MG Krauss JK. Micrographia induced by pallidal DBS for segmental dystonia: a subtle sign of hypokinesia? J Neural Transm. (Vienna). (2011 ) 118:549–53.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00702-010-0544-y

  301. 301.

    Volkmann J Wolters A Kupsch A Müller J Kühn AA Schneider G-H. Pallidal deep brain stimulation in patients with primary generalised or segmental dystonia: 5-year follow-up of a randomised trial. Lancet Neurol. (2012 ) 11:1029–38.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1474-4422(12)70257-0

  302. 302.

    Nebel A Reese R Deuschl G Mehdorn H-M Volkmann J. Acquired stuttering after pallidal deep brain stimulation for dystonia. J Neural Transm. (2009 ) 116:167–9.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00702-008-0173-x

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.