オオヤマ　ゲンコウ   OYAMA Genko   大山　彦光    所属   埼玉医科大学  医学部 脳神経内科    職種   教授
論文種別	学術雑誌(原著)
言語種別	英語
査読の有無	査読あり
表題	Mixed results for GPi-DBS in the treatment of cranio-facial and cranio-cervical dystonia symptoms.
掲載誌名	正式名：Journal of neurology
掲載区分	国外
巻・号・頁	258(11),2069-74頁
著者・共著者	Natlada Limotai,Criscely Go,Genko Oyama,Nelson Hwynn,Theresa Zesiewicz,Kelly Foote,Roongroj Bhidayasiri,Irene Malaty,Pam Zeilman,Ramon Rodriguez,Michael S Okun
発行年月	2011/11
概要	The aim of the study is to determine clinical outcomes in patients undergoing Globus Pallidus Internus Deep Brain Stimulation (GPi-DBS) for cranio-facial and cranio-cervical dystonia (Meige) symptoms. A total of 6 patients seen between 2002 and 2010 with cranio-facial and cranio-cervical dystonia symptoms were identified from the University of Florida Institutional Review Board approved database. Patients were videotaped using a standardized protocol, and tapes were randomized and blindly reviewed by a movement disorders neurologist. The Unified Dystonia Rating Scale improved 31.6 ± 23.2% (range: 3.4-63.2%) at 6 months and 63.7 ± 35.3% (range: 6.3-100%) at 12 months. The Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale improved 45.3 ± 29.5% (range: 4.7-75.0%) at 6 months and 61.8 ± 30.9% (range: 16.6-100%) at 12 months. One patient significantly had a very large improvement with little evidence of residual dystonia. Blepharospasm improved in all patients, whereas speech and swallowing did not improve in this cohort. Two patients improved with unilateral GPi-DBS, although one required a contralateral DBS later in the disease course. Two patients were managed with low frequency stimulation (<100 Hz). Two patients had less than 20% benefit. GPi-DBS for cranio-facial and cranio-cervical symptoms is an effective strategy to manage a subset of patients who remain unresponsive to optimized medical management. Unilateral stimulation may be an option for some patients, but it remains unclear whether response to single-sided stimulation will be sustainable. The mixed results of this GPi-DBS case series highlight the need for a careful re-examination of selection criteria, alternative brain targets, and possibly rescue leads for patients who are non-responders to the GPi target.
DOI	10.1007/s00415-011-6075-0
PMID	21553081