• Anwen M Harries, Shannon Major, Mandeep Sandhu, and Christopher R Honey.
• Department of Neurosurgery, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. anwen.harries@gmail.com
• Neuromodulation. 2012 May 1;15(3):214-7; discussion 217-8.

IntroductionWith the advent of rechargeable internal neural stimulators (rINS) for deep brain stimulation, our aim was to survey patient satisfaction and clinical efficacy in an early cohort of patients receiving this new technology.MethodsThis is an observational study on nine patients with rINS. All patients had initially received non-rechargeable INS with established efficacy of their deep brain stimulation system for either dystonia or pain. Patient satisfaction and efficacy with their rINS were established by completion of a questionnaire, a quality of life assessment (SF-36), and calculation of the total electrical energy delivered (TEED) by the rINS.ResultsA reduction in efficacy of their rINS was noticed in 22% of patients. In 78% of patients, there was a problem with recharging their rINS because of poor contact. Two patients (22%) felt that recharging the rINS interfered with their lives and it was a daily reminder that they had a deep brain stimulator system in situ. Eight out of nine patients (89%), however, would recommend to other patients to have an rINS.ConclusionMost patients were happy with their rechargeable internal neural stimulator. A reduction in efficacy was noticed in 22% of patients, which is similar to the proportion of patients noticing a reduction in efficacy when replacing with a non-rechargeable system. Thus, all patients require close monitoring post-replacement of rINS, in case possible adjustment of parameters is required.© 2011 International Neuromodulation Society.

14 keywords...

hide…