Neurostimulation Devices Used in Treatment of Epilepsy.

Evren Burakgazi Dalkilic
Author Information
  1. Evren Burakgazi Dalkilic: Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, NJ, 08103, USA. Burakgazi-dalkilic-evren@cooperhealth.edu.

Abstract

OPINION STATEMENT: Epilepsy is a chronic neurological disorder frequently requiring lifelong treatment. In 70% of epilepsy patients, seizures are well controlled by antiepileptic medications. About 30% of epilepsy patients remain refractory to medical treatments and may need surgical interventions for better seizure control. Unfortunately and not infrequently, surgical intervention is not feasible due to various reasons such as multiple seizure foci, not resectable focus because of eloquent cortex location, or inability to tolerate surgery due to ongoing concomitant medical conditions. Neurostimulation devices have provided possible seizure control for refractory epilepsy patients who are not candidates for surgical intervention. Among them, vagal nerve stimulation (VNS) has been the oldest, in use since 1997. VNS was followed by responsive nerve stimulation (RNS) after obtaining FDA approval in 2013. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has not yet met approval in the USA, but has been in clinical practice in Europe since 2010. Neurostimulation devices vary in how they are inserted and their mechanisms of action. VNS has been easily accepted by patients since it is placed extracranially. By contrast, DBS and RNS require invasive procedures for intracranial implantation. As use of these devices will continue to increase in the foreseeable future, we aimed to contribute to the foundation for new research to expand on current knowledge and practice by reviewing the current status of the literature.

Keywords

References

  1. Neuroscience. 2011 Aug 25;189:207-14 [PMID: 21627982]
  2. J Neurosurg. 1978 Mar;48(3):407-16 [PMID: 344840]
  3. Neuroimage. 2008 Feb 15;39(4):1839-49 [PMID: 18082429]
  4. Epilepsia. 2014 Mar;55(3):432-41 [PMID: 24621228]
  5. Epilepsia. 1999 Jul;40(7):822-9 [PMID: 10403204]
  6. Epilepsy Res. 2009 Jul;85(1):31-45 [PMID: 19369037]
  7. Epilepsy Res. 1997 Sep;28(2):89-100 [PMID: 9267773]
  8. Neurobiol Dis. 2005 Jun-Jul;19(1-2):119-28 [PMID: 15837567]
  9. Appl Neurophysiol. 1980;43(3-5):244-58 [PMID: 6975064]
  10. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2001 Sep;18(5):415-8 [PMID: 11709646]
  11. Neurology. 1999 Apr 12;52(6):1166-73 [PMID: 10214738]
  12. Clin Neurophysiol. 2005 Jun;116(6):1291-9 [PMID: 15978492]
  13. Epilepsia. 2004 Dec;45(12):1560-7 [PMID: 15571514]
  14. Seizure. 2009 May;18(4):269-74 [PMID: 19081273]
  15. Epilepsia. 1994 Nov-Dec;35(6):1309-16 [PMID: 7988525]
  16. Neurology. 2011 Sep 27;77(13):1295-304 [PMID: 21917777]
  17. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1984 Aug;47(8):769-74 [PMID: 6381652]
  18. Neurology. 2009 Dec 8;73(23):2018-22 [PMID: 19996076]
  19. N Engl J Med. 2000 Feb 3;342(5):314-9 [PMID: 10660394]
  20. Curr Opin Neurol. 2012 Apr;25(2):201-7 [PMID: 22274774]
  21. Epilepsia. 2004 Jul;45(7):787-91 [PMID: 15230703]
  22. Epilepsy Behav. 2015 Jan;42:44-7 [PMID: 25499162]
  23. JAMA. 2012 Mar 7;307(9):922-30 [PMID: 22396514]
  24. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. 1992;58(1-4):200-8 [PMID: 1439341]
  25. Epilepsia. 2010 May;51(5):899-908 [PMID: 20331461]
  26. Neurology. 1995 Feb;45(2):224-30 [PMID: 7854516]
  27. J Neurosci. 1991 Oct;11(10):3135-45 [PMID: 1682425]
  28. N Engl J Med. 2001 Aug 2;345(5):311-8 [PMID: 11484687]
  29. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2011 Oct;22(4):481-8, vi [PMID: 21939847]
  30. Neurology. 1998 Jul;51(1):48-55 [PMID: 9674777]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0NeurostimulationstimulationpatientsdevicesVNSEpilepsyepilepsyrefractorysurgicalseizurenervesinceRNSDBSmedicalcontrolinterventiondueuseapprovalDeepbrainpracticecurrentOPINIONSTATEMENT:chronicneurologicaldisorderfrequentlyrequiringlifelongtreatment70%seizureswellcontrolledantiepilepticmedications30%remaintreatmentsmayneedinterventionsbetterUnfortunatelyinfrequentlyfeasiblevariousreasonsmultiplefociresectablefocuseloquentcortexlocationinabilitytoleratesurgeryongoingconcomitantconditionsprovidedpossiblecandidatesAmongvagaloldest1997followedresponsiveobtainingFDA2013yetmetUSAclinicalEurope2010varyinsertedmechanismsactioneasilyacceptedplacedextracraniallycontrastrequireinvasiveproceduresintracranialimplantationwillcontinueincreaseforeseeablefutureaimedcontributefoundationnewresearchexpandknowledgereviewingstatusliteratureDevicesUsedTreatmentClosed-loopMedicallyOpen-loopResponserateResponsiveneurostimulationSeizurereductionVagal

Similar Articles

Cited By