Long-term double-blinded unilateral pedunculopontine area stimulation in Parkinson's disease
ABSTRACT Background Gait‐related symptoms are often refractory to current available treatment options with a significant reduction in quality of life in Parkinson's disease. Objectives The objective of this study was to determine the long‐term efficacy and safety of unilateral pedunculopontine...
Saved in:
Published in | Movement disorders Vol. 31; no. 10; pp. 1570 - 1574 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
United States
Blackwell Publishing Ltd
01.10.2016
Wiley Subscription Services, Inc |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | ABSTRACT
Background
Gait‐related symptoms are often refractory to current available treatment options with a significant reduction in quality of life in Parkinson's disease.
Objectives
The objective of this study was to determine the long‐term efficacy and safety of unilateral pedunculopontine area stimulation for refractory gait and balance impairment in Parkinson's disease.
Methods
This study used periodic randomized double‐blinded assessments until 4 years postoperatively. The primary outcomes were gait‐related items of the UPDRS part II and the MDS‐UPDRS part III.
Results
At baseline, the median age and disease duration was 63 years (interquartile range: 62, 65) and 15 years (interquartile range: 11, 20). At 2 years, patient‐reported freezing (UPDRS part II, off‐time) was significantly better when compared with baseline (P =.028), with 62.5% of responders. At 4 years, there was no significant change in the used outcomes, but 66.7 % (n = 4 of 6) were responders for off‐time patient‐reported freezing and falling.
Conclusions
Pedunculopontine area stimulation has an initial but not sustained benefit for gait‐related symptoms. © 2016 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ark:/67375/WNG-JS0RSRCB-H istex:30F60EF1A97797793952705B7FB0731A3FD6E8C0 ArticleID:MDS26710 Nothing to report. Funding agency Relevant conflicts of interests/financial disclosures A.M.L. reports consulting fees from Medtronic, St. Jude, and Boston Scientific. E.M. reports consulting fees from Medtronic. The other authors report no disclosures. ObjectType-Article-2 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-News-1 ObjectType-Feature-3 content type line 23 ObjectType-Article-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 |
ISSN: | 0885-3185 1531-8257 |
DOI: | 10.1002/mds.26710 |