• Luyuan Li, Ali I Rae, and Kim J Burchiel.
• Department of Neurological Surgery, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland , Oregon , USA.
• Neurosurgery. 2024 Aug 28.

Background And ObjectivesThere remains significant debate regarding the performance of deep brain stimulation (DBS) procedures for Parkinson disease (PD) under local or general anesthesia. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes between "asleep" DBS (general anesthesia) and "awake" DBS (local anesthesia) for PD.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive literature review of all published studies on DBS for PD following PRISMA guideline on PubMed and Cochrane library from January 2004 to April 2023. Inclusion criteria included cohort ≥15 patients, clinical outcomes data which included Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) score and levodopa equivalent daily dosage (LEDD), and ≥3 months of follow-up. Analysis was conducted using Stata software.ResultsThere were 18 articles that met inclusion criteria. On meta-analysis, there were no significant differences between awake or asleep DBS with regard to percent change in UPDRS III "off" med/"on" DBS condition ( P = .6) and LEDD score ( P = .99). On subgroup analysis, we found that the choice of target had no significant effect on improvement of UPDRS III ( P = 1.0) or LEDD ( P = .99) change for the asleep vs awake operative approach. There were also no statistically significant differences between microelectrode recording (MER) use and no MER use in postoperative UPDRS III ( P = 1.0) or LEDD improvement ( P = .90) between awake and asleep surgery.ConclusionThere was no significant difference in the primary motor outcomes and LEDD improvement between asleep vs awake DBS. The variables of target selection and MER use had no statistically significant impact on outcome. We find that asleep techniques are both safe and effective compared with the awake technique.Copyright © Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2024. All rights reserved.

15 keywords...

hide…