ArticleNeuroradiology2025
Unveiling patterns of peri-lead edema after deep brain stimulation: a retrospective review of clinical and demographic factors.
Article in Neuroradiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePostoperative peri-lead edema (PLE) is an increasingly recognized complication of deep brain stimulation (DBS), a therapeutic intervention commonly used for neurological conditions such as Parkinson's disease (PD), essential tremor (ET), intractable focal epilepsy, and dystonia. In this study, we conducted a retrospective chart review to evaluate the incidence of PLE and explore potential clinical and demographic risk factors.
methodsA single physician performed DBS electrode placements. To check for complications, postoperative computed tomography (CT) scans were conducted on the day of surgery and approximately 12-15 days afterward. Data on age, gender, complications, edema size, electrode laterality, lead target, lead brand, indication, and use of robotic assistance versus Starfix were collected and analyzed statistically.
results133 leads were implanted in 63 patients, with peri-lead edema (PLE) observed in 65 electrodes (48.87%). Minor postoperative complications, such as subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) and subdural hematoma (SDH), were noted in some patients. A few cases of severe PLE were recorded, with the most significant volume of edema reaching 85.11 cm³. No statistically significant differences were found between PLE-positive and PLE-negative patients based on age, sex, lead target, indication, or robotic assistance versus Starfix. However, the use of Boston Scientific electrodes was significantly associated with PLE, with a p-value of 0.047. A logistic regression model (p = 0.013, R² = 0.219) correctly classified 63.2% of cases, with no significant predictors of PLE, but imaging complications (p = 0.057) and electrode brand (p = 0.086) approached significance, with Boston Scientific electrodes linked to higher PLE risk compared to Abbott electrodes (p = 0.027, OR = 3.729).
conclusionsPLE appears more prevalent than previously reported and generally presents with delayed onset post-surgery. This retrospective analysis identified the use of Boston Scientific electrodes as a potential risk factor for PLE. Further research, particularly more extensive studies, is necessary to clarify the underlying mechanisms of PLE, improve prevention strategies, and enhance our understanding of this complication.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.