Rechargeable vs. Nonrechargeable Internal Pulse Generators in the Management of Dystonia

Authors


  • Conflict of Interest: Dr Green has received honoraria from St Jude Medical in the past (before 2011) to attend neurosurgical conferences in a consulting relationship. Dr Green did not receive monies from St Jude Medical for this study. No other authors declare a conflict of interest.
  • For more information on author guidelines, an explanation of our peer review process, and conflict of interest informed consent policies, please go to http://www.wiley.com/bw/submit.asp?ref=1094-7159&site=1

Address correspondence to: Martin J. Gillies, Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences and Department of Neurosurgery, Oxford University Hospitals, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK. Email: martin.gillies@ouh.nhs.uk

Abstract

Objective

To test if deep brain stimulation (DBS) treatment of dystonia was similar in patients before and after implantation of rechargeable internal pulse generators (IPGs).

Materials and Methods

The Burke–Fahn–Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale (BFMDRS) severity and disability scores were compared in patients before DBS insertion, 24 months after DBS insertion with a nonrechargeable IPG, and after implantation of a rechargeable IPG.

Results

No significant differences were observed between dystonia control in patients before and after implantation of a rechargeable IPG.

Conclusions

Rechargeable IPGs should be the IPGs of choice for dystonic patients receiving DBS as IPGs offer similar treatment efficacy to nonrechargeable IPGs with advantages in terms of costs and reductions in reimplantation frequency.

Ancillary