Background: Deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease is often performed under conscious sedation or general anesthesia. However, anesthetic agents may influence intraoperative microelectrode recording, and the optimal anesthesia method for microelectrode recording remains unclear. This study compared general anesthesia and conscious sedation in preserving microelectrode recording signal intensity during deep brain stimulation. Methods: In this prospective, noninferiority randomized controlled trial, patients with Parkinson’s disease (UK Brain Bank criteria) undergoing elective bilateral surgery were randomized 1:1 to the conscious sedation or the general anesthesia group. During surgery, a desflurane anesthetic titrated against the quality of the electrophysiologic signal was applied in the general anesthesia group, whereas patients in the conscious sedation group received dexmedetomidine anesthesia. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with high-quality microelectrode recording (normalized root mean square, nRMS >2.0), assessed postoperatively off-line. Secondary outcomes included operation and recording duration, 6-month clinical efficacy, and complication rates. Results: Of 188 randomized patients (94 general anesthesia, 93 conscious sedation), desflurane anesthesia was noninferior for high nRMS proportion (89.4% vs. 90.3%; difference, –0.96%; 95% CI, –9.62 to 7.70). The general anesthesia group had shorter operative time (difference, –9.07 minutes; 95% CI, –13.99 to –4.14; P<0.001). At 6 months, changes in Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale score (difference, –2.50; 95% CI, –7.20 to 2.20; P=0.297), levodopa equivalent daily dose (difference, –58.4 mg; 95% CI, –133.56 to 16.75; P=0.128) and the complication rates (general anesthesia: 10.9% vs. conscious sedation: 8.9%; p=0.655) were comparable between the groups. Conclusion: General anesthesia is noninferior to conscious sedation for microelectrode-guided subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation, providing equivalent signal intensity and clinical outcomes while improving procedural efficiency, supporting its use as a valid clinical option.
Xie et al. (Fri,) studied this question.