Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31423642›Full record

ArticleNeuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society2020

Comparing Current Steering Technologies for Directional Deep Brain Stimulation Using a Computational Model That Incorporates Heterogeneous Tissue Properties.

Simeng Zhang, Peter Silburn, Nader Pouratian, Binith Cheeran, Lalit Venkatesan, Alexander Kent, Alfons Schnitzler

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Frontiers in neurology · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Simeng ZhangNeuromodulation Division, Abbott, Plano, TX, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3932-6342
Peter SilburnQueensland Brain Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Nader PouratianDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Binith CheeranNeuromodulation Division, Abbott, Plano, TX, USA.
Lalit VenkatesanNeuromodulation Division, Abbott, Plano, TX, USA.
Alexander KentNeuromodulation Division, Abbott, Plano, TX, USA.
Alfons SchnitzlerInstitute of Clinical Neuroscience and Medical Psychology and Department of Neurology, Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Abbott (United States) · USHeinrich Heine University Düsseldorf · DEThe University of Queensland · AUUniversity of California, Los Angeles · US

Funding

Abbott
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveA computational model that accounts for heterogeneous tissue properties was used to compare multiple independent current control (MICC), multi-stim set (MSS), and concurrent activation (co-activation) current steering technologies utilized in deep brain stimulation (DBS) on volume of tissue activated (VTA) and power consumption.

methodsA computational model was implemented in Sim4Life v4.0 with the multimodal image-based detailed anatomical (MIDA) model, which accounts for heterogeneous tissue properties. A segmented DBS lead placed in the subthalamic nucleus (STN). Three milliamperes of current (with a 90 μs pseudo-biphasic waveform) was distributed between two electrodes with various current splits. The laterality, directional accuracy, volume, and shape of the VTAs using MICC, MSS and co-activation, and their power consumption were computed and compared.

resultsMICC, MSS, and coactivation resulted in less laterality of steering than single-segment activation. Both MICC and MSS show directional inaccuracy (more pronounced with MSS) during radial current steering. Co-activation showed greater directional accuracy than MICC and MSS at centerline between the two activated electrodes. MSS VTA volume was smaller and more compact with less current spread outside the active electrode plane than MICC VTA. There was no consistent pattern of power drain between MSS and MICC, but electrode co-activation always used less power than either fractionating paradigm.

conclusionWhile current fractionalization technologies can achieve current steering between two segmented electrodes, this study shows that there are important limitations in accuracy and focus of tissue activation when tissue heterogeneity is accounted for.

Indexed as

Finite Element AnalysisModels, NeurologicalDeep Brain StimulationHumansCurrent steeringDBSMICCMSSVTA

Identifiers

PMID31423642
PMCPMC7318189
OpenAlexW2969669397

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.