Deep brain stimulation and other surgical modalities for the management of essential tremor

Kai-Liang Wang,Qianwei Ren,Shannon Chiu,Bhavana Patel,Fan-Gang Meng,Wei Hu,Aparna Wagle Shukla
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2020.1806709
IF: 3.439
2020-08-02
Expert Review of Medical Devices
Abstract:<span>Surgical treatments are considered for essential tremor (ET) when patients do not respond to oral pharmacological therapies. These treatments mainly comprise radiofrequency (RF) thalamotomy, gamma knife radiosurgery (GKRS), deep brain stimulation (DBS), and focused ultrasound (FUS) procedures.We reviewed the strengths and weaknesses of each procedure and clinical outcomes for 7 RF studies (n = 85), 11 GKRS (n = 477), 33 DBS (n = 1061), and 13 FUS studies (n = 368). A formal comparison was not possible given the heterogeneity in studies. Improvements were about 42%–90% RF, 10%–79% GKRS, 45%–83% DBS, 42%–83% FUS at short-term follow-up (&lt;12 months) and were about 54%–82% RF, 11%–84% GKRS, 18%–92% DBS, and 42%–80% FUS at long-term follow-up (&gt;12 months).We found DBS with inherent advantages of being an adjustable and reversible procedure as the most frequently employed surgical procedure for control of ET symptoms. FUS is a promising procedure but has limited applicability for unilateral control of symptoms. RF is invasive, and GKRS has unpredictable delayed effects. Each of these surgical modalities has advantages and limitations that need consideration when selecting a treatment for the ET patients.</span>
engineering, biomedical
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The problem this paper attempts to address is: for patients with drug-resistant Essential Tremor (ET), to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of different surgical treatment methods, including Radiofrequency Thalamotomy (RF), Gamma Knife Radiosurgery (GKRS), Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS), and Focused Ultrasound (FUS). Specifically, the paper aims to: 1. **Evaluate the pros and cons of various surgical methods**: By reviewing the literature, it provides a detailed analysis of the technical characteristics, advantages, and limitations of each surgical method. 2. **Compare clinical efficacy**: By summarizing and analyzing data from multiple studies, it assesses the efficacy of these surgical methods in the short term (<12 months) and long term (>12 months). 3. **Provide expert opinions**: Based on existing research results, it offers recommendations for surgical treatment options for ET patients, helping doctors and patients make the best decisions. Through systematic review and analysis, the paper aims to provide scientific evidence for clinicians to better choose the appropriate surgical treatment method for patients.