4.3 Review

Deep Brain Electrode Externalization and Risk of Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

OPERATIVE NEUROSURGERY
卷 20, 期 2, 页码 141-150

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1093/ons/opaa268

关键词

Adverse events; Complications; Deep brain stimulation; Externalization; Infection

资金

  1. NIH/NINDS [R01NS097882, UH3NS103549]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aimed to determine the association between lead externalization and risk of infection in deep brain stimulation. The pooled proportion of infection in patients with lead externalization was found to be comparable to that of patients without externalization. Additional studies are needed to verify these findings before implementing in clinical practice.
BACKGROUND: When evaluating deep brain stimulation (DBS) for newer indications, patients may benefit from trial stimulation prior to permanent implantation or for investigatory purposes. Although several case series have evaluated infectious complications among DBS patients who underwent trials with external hardware, outcomes have been inconsistent. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a period of lead externalization is associated with an increased risk of infection. METHODS: We conducted a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses compliant systematic review of all studies that included rates of infection for patients who were externalized prior to DBS implantation. A meta-analysis of proportions was performed to estimate the pooled proportion of infection across studies, and a meta-analysis of relative risks was conducted on those studies that included a control group of nonexternalized patients. Heterogeneity across studies was assessed via I-2 index. RESULTS: Our search retrieved 23 articles, comprising 1354 patients who underwent lead externalization. The pooled proportion of infection was 6.9% (95% CI: 4.7%-9.5%), with a moderate to high level of heterogeneity between studies (I-2 = 62.2%; 95% CI: 40.7-75.9; P < .0001). A total of 3 studies, comprising 212 externalized patients, included a control group. Rate of infection in externalized patients was 5.2% as compared to 6.0% in nonexternalized patients. However, meta-analysis was inadequately powered to determine whether there was indeed no difference in infection rate between the groups. CONCLUSION: The rate of infection in patients with electrode externalization is comparable to that reported in the literature for DBS implantation without a trial period. Future studies are needed before this information can be confidently used in the clinical setting.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据