Next Article in Journal
Acute Confusional Migraine: Distinct Clinical Entity or Spectrum of Migraine Biology?
Next Article in Special Issue
Long-Term Satisfaction and Patient-Centered Outcomes of Deep Brain Stimulation in Parkinson’s Disease
Previous Article in Journal
ABCA7 and Pathogenic Pathways of Alzheimer’s Disease
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Emerging Role of Tractography in Deep Brain Stimulation: Basic Principles and Current Applications
Article Menu
Issue 2 (February) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Brain Sci. 2018, 8(2), 28; https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci8020028

Electric Field Comparison between Microelectrode Recording and Deep Brain Stimulation Systems—A Simulation Study

1
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Linköping University, 58185 Linköping, Sweden
2
Institute for Medical and Analytical Technologies, School of Life Sciences, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland FHNW, 4132 Muttenz, Switzerland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 6 December 2017 / Revised: 30 January 2018 / Accepted: 1 February 2018 / Published: 6 February 2018
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [3156 KB, uploaded 6 February 2018]   |  

Abstract

The success of deep brain stimulation (DBS) relies primarily on the localization of the implanted electrode. Its final position can be chosen based on the results of intraoperative microelectrode recording (MER) and stimulation tests. The optimal position often differs from the final one selected for chronic stimulation with the DBS electrode. The aim of the study was to investigate, using finite element method (FEM) modeling and simulations, whether lead design, electrical setup, and operating modes induce differences in electric field (EF) distribution and in consequence, the clinical outcome. Finite element models of a MER system and a chronic DBS lead were developed. Simulations of the EF were performed for homogenous and patient-specific brain models to evaluate the influence of grounding (guide tube vs. stimulator case), parallel MER leads, and non-active DBS contacts. Results showed that the EF is deformed depending on the distance between the guide tube and stimulating contact. Several parallel MER leads and the presence of the non-active DBS contacts influence the EF distribution. The DBS EF volume can cover the intraoperatively produced EF, but can also extend to other anatomical areas. In conclusion, EF deformations between stimulation tests and DBS should be taken into consideration as they can alter the clinical outcome. View Full-Text
Keywords: microelectrode recording (MER); finite element method (FEM); deep brain stimulation (DBS); brain model; Dice coefficient; patient-specific microelectrode recording (MER); finite element method (FEM); deep brain stimulation (DBS); brain model; Dice coefficient; patient-specific
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Alonso, F.; Vogel, D.; Johansson, J.; Wårdell, K.; Hemm, S. Electric Field Comparison between Microelectrode Recording and Deep Brain Stimulation Systems—A Simulation Study. Brain Sci. 2018, 8, 28.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Brain Sci. EISSN 2076-3425 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top