| Title |
Sudden loss of the deep brain stimulation effect with high impedance without macroscopic fracture: a case report and review of the published literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ndt.s86120 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hui-Jun Yang, Ji Young Yun, Young Eun Kim, Yong Hoon Lim, Han-Joon Kim, Sun Ha Paek, Beom S Jeon |
| Abstract |
The number of deep brain stimulation (DBS) hardware complications has increased during the past decade. In cases of abnormally high lead impedance with no evidence of a macroscopic fracture, optimal treatment options have not yet been established. Here, we present the case of a 49-year-old woman with a 12-year history of Parkinson's disease who received bilateral subthalamic nucleus DBS in March 2006. The patient showed good control of parkinsonism until December 24, 2010, when she awoke with abrupt worsening of parkinsonian symptoms. At telemetric testing, lead impedances were found at >2,000 Ω in all four leads on the left side. Fracture of a lead or an extension wire was suspected. However, radiological screening and palpation revealed no macroscopic fracture. In June 2011, the implantable pulse generator (IPG) was changed under local anesthesia without any complications. Postoperatively, her parkinsonism immediately improved to the previous level, and the lead impedance readings by telemetry were also normalized. The disconnection of the neurostimulator connector block and the hybrid circuit board of the IPG was confirmed by destructive analysis. The present report illustrates that a staged approach that starts with simple IPG replacement can be an option for some cases of acute DBS effect loss with high impedance, when radiological findings are normal, thereby sparing the intact electrodes and extension wires. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 6% |
| Germany | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 30 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 21% |
| Other | 6 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Unknown | 9 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 33% |
| Engineering | 5 | 15% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 6% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 11 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 June 2019.
All research outputs
#14,915,476
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#1,360
of 3,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,560
of 277,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#41
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,132 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,613 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.