ArticleBrain & spine2025
Short-term 30-day adverse events following awake versus asleep deep brain stimulation for movement disorders: a nationwide registry-based study.
Article in Brain & spine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) is FDA-approved for the management of medically refractory movement disorders and epilepsy. We aim to assess potential differences in adverse eventsamong patients undergoing asleep versus awake DBS, to facilitate a patient centric decision-making process for the selection of ideal anesthesia modality for individuals undergoing DBS procedures. Methods: The ACS National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database was queried for all patients undergoing DBS treatment between 2011 and 2020 in patients with a diagnosis of Parkinson's Disease, and Essential Tremor. Propensity score matching in a 2:1 ratio was performed. The primary endpoint was to quantify any short-term adverse events. Results: In total, 1778 patients undergoing asleep (75.7 %) and awake DBS procedures (24.3 %) were identified. The median age among included was 68.0 with most being males (65 %). After 2:1 propensity score matching there was no remaining baseline difference. 30-day complication rates were comparable between groups (2.3 % asleep vs. 0.7 % awake; p = 0.062). Similarly, there were no significant differences in 30-day readmission (3.5 % vs. 3.5 %; p = 0.96), reoperation (1.4 % vs. 0.9 %; p = 0.48), or non-home discharge (3.5 % vs. 3.0 %; p = 0.63). Median hospital length of stay did not differ significantly (0 vs. 0 days; p = 0.23). Conclusion: In this matched analysis using data from a prospective multicenter database of U.S. hospitals, asleep and awake DBS demonstrated comparable 30-day outcomes. No significant differences were observed in complication rates, readmissions, reoperations, discharge disposition, or length of hospital stay. These findings support clinical equipoise between the two approaches and underscore the importance of tailoring the choice of technique to individual patient characteristics and preferences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.