Explore the vast range of titles available.

Accuracy is crucial in Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS). Electrophysiological and image-based techniques are used to avoid suboptimal positioning. Macrostimulation is the gold standard to delineate the therapeutic window intraoperatively. Despite this, electrode revision rates due to malpositioning are as high as 17%. The goal was to compare motor evoked potentials (MEPs) with the gold standard of Macrostimulation. We assessed accuracy and precision as well as the correlation in predicting motor side effects at the initial mapping 4 weeks postoperatively. In this prospective study intraoperative MEPs from 94 contacts in 16 patients undergoing STN DBS under local anesthesia were correlated to the postoperative threshold for stimulation-induced motor side effects and compared to intraoperative Macrostimulation. Analysis of accuracy, precision and correlation (Pearson) was performed. MEPs of the upper extremity had a mean percentage error of 25% (SD 38.8%) and correlated significantly with the motor threshold at postoperative mapping (R=0.235). Macrostimulation was less accurate and precise with a mean percentage error of − 68% (SD 78.8%) but had a higher correlation (R=0.388). MEPs rarely (3%) overestimated the threshold by maximally 1 mA. In contrast, Macrostimulation overestimated the threshold by over 1 mA in 69% leading to a false sense of security. MEPs are feasible in an awake setting during Deep Brain Stimulation in the STN for PD patients. MEPs of the upper extremity are more accurate and precise predicting the motor threshold and avoid a false sense of security in comparison to the gold standard of Macrostimulation. •Motor evoked potentials are feasible in awake Deep Brain Stimulation.•They are more accurate and precise than Macrostimulation.•Macrostimulation underestimates motor thresholds and gives a false sense of security.•Dysarthria and facial pulling are the most common limiting motor symptoms in STN DBS.

The aim of our study was to compare the results obtained by intraoperative and postoperative subthalamic nucleus (STN) macrostimulation in Parkinson’s disease (PD). One hundred three PD patients implanted with bilateral STN stimulation were included. The thresholds for efficacy and side effects (motor contraction; paresthesias; oculomotor signs) observed on the same trajectory and at the same depth during the intraoperative evaluation and the first postoperative setting of STN stimulation parameters were collected. The level of improvement was divided into four categories depending on the degree of rigidity reduction: 0: no effect, A (mediocre efficacy): 20–50%, B (good efficacy): 60–100%, LL: lesion-like effect (disappearance of rigidity after implantation). Efficacy of STN stimulation was analyzed in 83 patients for a total of 664 contacts. For the best effects (B, LL), the results obtained in the operative room were concordant with those of the postoperative evaluation for 81% of the contacts. For the mediocre effects (A) and absence of efficacy, the results were only concordant in 20%. Side effects were analyzed in 103 patients for a total of 824 contacts. In 35% of the tested contacts paresthesias that were absent during surgery were observed postoperatively. This discrepancy was of 17% for the motor and of 10% for oculomotor side effects. Differences between the type of electrodes used, the stimulation parameters employed and the conditions of the assessment could explain these discrepancies.