Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
  • For Authors
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editors
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
    • Subscribe on Stitcher
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Other Publications
    • ajnr

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
  • For Authors
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editors
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
    • Subscribe on Stitcher
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds
Review ArticleAdult Brain
Open Access

Neuroimaging Advances in Deep Brain Stimulation: Review of Indications, Anatomy, and Brain Connectomics

E.H. Middlebrooks, R.A. Domingo, T. Vivas-Buitrago, L. Okromelidze, T. Tsuboi, J.K. Wong, R.S. Eisinger, L. Almeida, M.R. Burns, A. Horn, R.J. Uitti, R.E. Wharen, V.M. Holanda and S.S. Grewal
American Journal of Neuroradiology September 2020, 41 (9) 1558-1568; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A6693
E.H. Middlebrooks
aFrom the Departments of Radiology (E.H.M., L.O.)
bNeurosurgery (E.H.M., R.A.D., T.V.-B., R.E.W., S.S.G.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for E.H. Middlebrooks
R.A. Domingo
bNeurosurgery (E.H.M., R.A.D., T.V.-B., R.E.W., S.S.G.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for R.A. Domingo
T. Vivas-Buitrago
bNeurosurgery (E.H.M., R.A.D., T.V.-B., R.E.W., S.S.G.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for T. Vivas-Buitrago
L. Okromelidze
aFrom the Departments of Radiology (E.H.M., L.O.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for L. Okromelidze
T. Tsuboi
dDepartment of Neurology (T.T., J.K.W., R.S.E., L.A., M.R.B.), Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
eDepartment of Neurology (T.T.), Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for T. Tsuboi
J.K. Wong
dDepartment of Neurology (T.T., J.K.W., R.S.E., L.A., M.R.B.), Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for J.K. Wong
R.S. Eisinger
dDepartment of Neurology (T.T., J.K.W., R.S.E., L.A., M.R.B.), Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for R.S. Eisinger
L. Almeida
dDepartment of Neurology (T.T., J.K.W., R.S.E., L.A., M.R.B.), Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for L. Almeida
M.R. Burns
dDepartment of Neurology (T.T., J.K.W., R.S.E., L.A., M.R.B.), Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for M.R. Burns
A. Horn
fDepartment for Neurology (A.H.), Charité, University Medicine Berlin, Berlin, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for A. Horn
R.J. Uitti
cand Neurology (R.J.U.), Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for R.J. Uitti
R.E. Wharen Jr
bNeurosurgery (E.H.M., R.A.D., T.V.-B., R.E.W., S.S.G.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for R.E. Wharen Jr
V.M. Holanda
gCenter of Neurology and Neurosurgery Associates (V.M.H.), BP–A Beneficência Portuguesa de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for V.M. Holanda
S.S. Grewal
bNeurosurgery (E.H.M., R.A.D., T.V.-B., R.E.W., S.S.G.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for S.S. Grewal
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

SUMMARY: Deep brain stimulation is an established therapy for multiple brain disorders, with rapidly expanding potential indications. Neuroimaging has advanced the field of deep brain stimulation through improvements in delineation of anatomy, and, more recently, application of brain connectomics. Older lesion-derived, localizationist theories of these conditions have evolved to newer, network-based “circuitopathies,” aided by the ability to directly assess these brain circuits in vivo through the use of advanced neuroimaging techniques, such as diffusion tractography and fMRI. In this review, we use a combination of ultra-high-field MR imaging and diffusion tractography to highlight relevant anatomy for the currently approved indications for deep brain stimulation in the United States: essential tremor, Parkinson disease, drug-resistant epilepsy, dystonia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. We also review the literature regarding the use of fMRI and diffusion tractography in understanding the role of deep brain stimulation in these disorders, as well as their potential use in both surgical targeting and device programming.

ABBREVIATIONS:

AL
ansa lenticularis
ALIC
anterior limb of the internal capsule
ANT
anterior nucleus of the thalamus
AS
ansa subthalamica
ATR
anterior thalamic radiations
DBS
deep brain stimulation
DRTT
dentatorubrothalamic tract
ET
essential tremor
FGATIR
fast gray matter acquisition T1 inversion recovery
FL
fasciculus lenticularis
FS
fasciculus subthalamicus
GPe
globus pallidus externus
GPi
globus pallidus internus
MFB
medial forebrain bundle
MMT
mammillothalamic tract
OCD
obsessive-compulsive disorder
PD
Parkinson disease
slMFB
superolateral branch of the medial forebrain bundle
STN
subthalamic
TF
thalamic fasciculus
VIM
ventral intermedius nucleus
VO
ventralis oralis
ZI
zona incerta

The use of deep brain stimulation (DBS) for treatment of multiple movement and psychiatric disorders has been both beneficial and safe.1 Currently, there are 5 indications for DBS recognized by the United States FDA: essential tremor (ET), Parkinson disease (PD), and drug-resistant epilepsy, with dystonia and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) carrying a humanitarian device exemption. The relevant brain targets include the ventral intermedius nucleus (VIM) of the thalamus, subthalamic nucleus (STN), globus pallidus internus (GPi), anterior nucleus of the thalamus (ANT), and anterior limb of the internal capsule (ALIC). While their pathophysiology may be different, these disorders share 1 unifying feature: They represent brain network disorders, or “circuitopathies.”2 Additionally, no anatomic correlates (viewed on neuroimaging) can be found that code for various clinical signs of these conditions. Consequently, there has been a shift from traditional localizationist models of the brain to a “connectomic” approach (considering function more distributed within brain networks) to study mechanisms of and responses to DBS and other forms of functional neurosurgery. Reimagining the role of neuroimaging in directing such treatments is of paramount importance.

Historically, neurosurgical targeting was performed by use of a coordinate system referenced to readily identifiable landmarks (“indirect targeting”), for example, the anterior/posterior commissure line. Initial targeting was further refined during awake surgery by use of microelectrode neurophysiologic recordings and macrostimulation. Unfortunately, every pass of a microelectrode increases the risk of complication, as well as the possibility of inducing a transient “microlesion” effect that can further limit or complicate intraoperative testing and interpretation. Surgical targeting and stimulation programming rapidly evolved in conjunction with improvements in MR imaging technology. Improved direct visualization of targets with high-field MR imaging and volumetric, high-resolution imaging allowed “direct targeting” of some structures. However, other targets remain poorly resolved, such as the nuclei of the thalamus. More recently, the field of brain connectomics (fMRI and diffusion tractography) has shown great promise in elucidating the mechanisms of DBS and providing patient-specific functional targets that cannot otherwise be defined noninvasively.

In this review, we discuss the FDA-approved indications of DBS, including relevant connectomic and structural anatomy (summarized in the Table), as well as commonly employed MR imaging sequences. A combination of diffusion tractography and postmortem examination and an ultra-high-resolution 7T FLASH MR imaging3 open-source image set (https://datadryad.org/stash/dataset/doi:10.5061/dryad.119f80q) is used throughout to highlight relevant anatomy. For tractography, a group-averaged dataset4 based on 1021 subjects from the Human Connectome Project (https://www.humanconnectome.org) open-source data base, normalized to Montreal Neurological Institute template space and reconstructed by using a q-space diffeomorphic reconstruction,5 was utilized to obtain the spin distribution function.6 Tractography was then generated in DSI Studio (http://dsi-studio.labsolver.org) by using a combination of manual regions of interest, as well as from the DBS Intrinsic Template Atlas7 and Horn et al.8 Tractography was displayed in Lead-DBS software (http://www.lead-dbs.org).9 The generated tract atlas will be released as open-source data, and is currently available in the latest release of the Lead DBS software package.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup

Summary of key anatomic tracts and structures

Essential Tremor

ET was 1 of 2 initially approved indications for DBS in 1997 (along with severe tremor in PD), targeting the VIM nucleus of the thalamus. Multiple clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of VIM stimulation in the treatment of medical-refractory ET.10 Since the approval of VIM as a treatment target, more recent studies have questioned the ideal target location for treatment of tremor. In particular, there has been increasing interest in the posterior subthalamic area, which encompasses the caudal zona incerta (ZI).11 Long-term studies, however, have shown that while there is a more pronounced improvement, initially, with caudal ZI stimulation, the VIM target has produced better long-term tremor relief.12 Last, the ventralis oralis (VO) nucleus of the thalamus has also been explored as a potential target for tremor, but has not been extensively studied.13

Anatomy.

The ventral thalamus contains multiple nuclei that function in the sensorimotor network. The ventral caudal nucleus, a relay nucleus for proprioception, vibration, and fine touch via the medial lemniscus pathway, lies in the posterior ventral thalamus.14 Anterior to the ventral caudal nucleus is the VIM (Fig 1A, -B; images without outlines in On-line Figure), and anterior to the VIM is the VO nucleus, which is divided into a posterior and anterior portion, which receives pallidofugal fibers from the pallidum (discussed later).15 The VIM and ventralis oralis posterior largely receive fibers of the dentatorubrothalamic tract (DRTT).14,16 The DRTT courses from the dentate nucleus of the cerebellum through the ipsilateral superior cerebellar peduncle and then partially decussates in the midbrain (Fig 1C, -D).17 Most fibers cross to the contralateral red nucleus and ascend through the posterior subthalamic area, VIM, and ventralis oralis posterior and finally terminate within the primary motor cortex. A small subset (20%–30%) does not decussate but rather courses to the ipsilateral red nucleus and follows a similar path to the ipsilateral primary motor cortex.17

FIG 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 1.

Axial 7T image (A) and axial 3T FGATIR image (B) illustrating the internal architecture of the ventral thalamus with key ventral nuclei outlined, including the ventral caudal (VC), VIM, and VO nuclei lying anterior to the pulvinar (Pul). Sagittal oblique (C) and coronal (D) images showing the relationship of the decussating (red) and nondecussating (green) tracts of the left DRTT and their relationship to the VIM nucleus and ZI (blue). The decussating fibers can be seen along the anterior border of the VIM in the location of the posterior VO. The DRTT extends from the dentate nucleus through the superior cerebellar peduncle, with part of the tract decussating in the midbrain and part continuing ipsilateral to the level of the red nucleus (RN), through the posterior subthalamic region and ZI, thalamus, and terminating in the primary motor cortex.

The outer boundaries of the thalamus are generally well-defined on high-resolution, T1-weighted gradient recalled-echo sequences (eg, MPRAGE). Contrast can be enhanced by application of 2 TIs in MPRAGE to create MP2RAGE images.18 The application of white matter suppression can also help delineate the thalamic boundaries and has the added advantage of revealing internal architecture of the thalamic nuclei (Fig 1B).19 Susceptibility-weighted imaging can also reveal internal details of the thalamic nuclei; however, this has been primarily shown at ultra-high-field (7T).20

Connectomics.

Multiple studies have examined the role of connectomics in the treatment of tremor targeting the VIM/posterior subthalamic area region. Early studies examining the segmentation of the thalamus based on the diffusion tractography connectivity profile showed that diffusion tractography was an independent predictor of tremor improvement.21-25 Based on diffusion tractography results, a common hypothesis has emerged that both VIM and caudal ZI stimulation exert their effect through stimulation of the DRTT, which traverses both targets (Fig 1D).26

Other studies examined segmentation of the thalamus using diffusion tractography, which revealed similar segregation of the ventral thalamus as described by histologic atlases.25,27 Using this approach, Middlebrooks et al28 showed substantial variability in structural connectivity in a cohort of subjects using a fixed anterior/posterior commissure targeting point, highlighting the need for more patient-specific, network-based targeting. By using this approach, several studies found that such segmentation was predictive of improvement in tremor, particularly, connectivity with nodes in the motor network.21-24

More recent studies focused on the DRTT, with several showing improvement in tremor associated with overlap of stimulation volume with the DRTT.25,29 Al-Fatly et al29 used atlas-based connectivity measures, in contrast to previous studies using patient data,21,25 and found stimulation volumes in the posterior subthalamic area closely associated with the DRTT correlated with greater tremor control. Importantly, many European datasets have focused more on the posterior subthalamic area region compared with United States datasets targeting the ventral thalamus, which has led to difficulty in fully understanding the role of local structures (such as the VIM, ventralis oralis posterior, and caudal ZI) versus the white matter tracts traversing these regions.30 It is likely that influencing the DRTT plays a major role in tremor reduction, but the role of local stimulation effects in these different gray matter regions may be important given the variability in outcomes targeting the posterior subthalamic area versus the ventral thalamus, particularly the incidence of stimulation-induced adverse effects.

In control subjects, fMRI has been used to localize the thalamic region corresponding to the thalamic motor network by using resting-state connectivity.31,32 Unfortunately, lengthy acquisition times currently limit application to the clinical setting. Using group-averaged normative data, however, Al-Fatly et al29 reported correlation between tremor improvement and functional connectivity similar to that seen with the structural connectivity, namely cerebellothalamocortical motor network connectivity. Gibson et al33 used active VIM stimulation to assess blood oxygen level–dependent signal changes in a cohort of patients with ET. Activation in sensorimotor, supplementary motor area, cerebellar, brain stem, and thalamic regions correlated with greater improvement in tremor. Interestingly, stimulation-induced adverse effects were more associated with precentral, postcentral, and subcentral region activation, which could support the lower incidence of adverse effects, such as ataxia, with more anterior VIM/ventralis oralis posterior stimulation.21,30,33

Parkinson Disease

Along with ET, the FDA approved VIM DBS for severe tremor in PD. In 2002, the FDA expanded its indications, approving DBS use in both the STN and GPi for advanced PD cases. Both targets have been shown as safe and effective, with comparable outcomes in motor symptom improvement.34 Both GPi and STN DBS have pros and cons, and target selection should be based on patient-by-patient considerations.34

Anatomy.

The STN is a small, almond-shaped subthalamic structure that lies anterolateral to the red nucleus, superior to the substantia nigra, and inferior to the ZI (Fig 2).35 The STN is positioned in close proximity to multiple critical white matter tracts, including the corticospinal tract ventrolaterally, medial lemniscus posterolaterally, and the optic tract inferolaterally.35 The STN is considered to be functionally divided into 3 zones that do not have a clear anatomic distinction. This tripartite division consists of a posterolateral motor division, middle associative division, and anteromedial limbic division.36 These subdivisions are of critical importance when considering DBS programming due to the possibility of off-target adverse effects. Likely, the divisions are implemented as a gradient, rather than in the form of clear compartments. Given that the STN receives direct input from a wide array of frontal regions, this gradient is largely informed by a similar functional gradient in the frontal cortex. Thus, functional zones of the nucleus can be defined by their structural and functional connectivity, as described next.

FIG 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 2.

Coronal (A) and axial 7T MR imaging (B) showing the relationship of structures of the basal ganglia and subthalamic area. The ZI is bordered inferiorly by the FL and superiorly by the TF as it inserts into the thalamus. The Edinger comb system can be seen as dark lines traversing the internal capsule perpendicularly (arrowheads) composed of the pallidofugal tracts, fasciculus subthalamicus, and FL. Axial susceptibility-weighted MR imaging (C) shows similar anatomy including the Edinger comb (arrowheads) and the ansa subthalamica (arrow). RN indicates red nucleus.

The STN has broad cortical and subcortical connections, including the caudate, putamen, pedunculopontine nucleus, globus pallidus externus (GPe), GPi, substantia nigra, substantia innominata, hypothalamus, olfactory tubercle, and mamillary body.35 These broad connections follow the tripartite function in motor, associative, and limbic processes, eg, limbic regions predominantly interact with limbic regions of the striatum or thalamus (Fig 3A). With regard to DBS, several key tracts warrant discussion. The fasciculus subthalamicus (FS) and ansa subthalamica (AS) are 2 of the 4 primary pallidofugal tracts (passing out of the pallidum) and connect the GPe and the GPi with the STN, respectively (Figs 3B-, C).35,37 The FS courses from the GPe lateral to the genu and ALIC to insert along the anterolateral aspect of the STN.35 The AS is a less described pathway that courses from the anteroventral pole of the GPi, intimately associated with the ansa lenticularis (AL), tracking anteriorly to curve around the internal capsule, and descend inferiorly to the anterovental STN (both limbic).37 Both connections likely contribute to the effect of STN DBS, in particular in treatment of dystonia.35

FIG 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 3.

Sagittal view of the tripartite division of the STN (A) and corresponding hyperdirect fibers (orange = posterolateral sensorimotor STN; cyan = middle associative STN; yellow = anteromedial limbic STN). Axial (B) and oblique coronal views (C) show the course of the AS (blue fibers) extending from the anteroventral pole of the globus pallidus internus (green region) and curving into the anterior pole of the limbic division of the STN (yellow region), while the FS (pink fibers) traverses the Edinger comb system extending from the globus pallidus externus (light blue region) to the middle associative STN (cyan).

Although it is not part of the original rate model of the basal ganglia, the more recently described hyperdirect pathway consists of direct connections from the cortex to the STN (Fig 3A).38,39 In keeping with the tripartite division of the STN, hyperdirect connections extend to the motor cortex from the posterior STN, associative cortex from the mid-STN, and limbic regions from the anterior STN. The hyperdirect pathway has been implicated in symptomatology of PD and associated with motor improvement seen with STN DBS in PD using diffusion tractography.35

The dorsal pallidum consists of the GPi and GPe, which are separated by the thin internal medial medullary lamina (Fig 4A). The external lateral medullary lamina separates the GPe from the adjacent putamen. An accessory lamina further subdivides the GPi into medial and lateral subcomponents. The internal capsule forms the medial border of the globus pallidus. The dorsal pallidum plays a major role in the motor network and is a common treatment target for multiple movement disorders. Similar to the STN, the pallidum has also been described as having a tripartite division.40

FIG 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 4.

Axial 7T MR imaging (A) showing the anatomy of the pallidum and adjacent structures. Posterior oblique (B) and anterior oblique views (C) highlight the relationship of the AL (yellow fibers) that originates from the anteroventral pole of the globus pallidus internus near the origin of the AS (purple fibers) but courses more dorsal to the AS. The FS is shown as red fibers. Sagittal view (D) shows the components of the thalamic fasciculus: dentatorubrothalamic tract (green), AL (yellow), and FL (red) associated with the VIM, ventralis oralis posterior (VOp), and ventralis oralis anterior (VOa) nuclei, respectively.

The GPi primarily connects to the thalamus, putamen, pedunculopontine nucleus, GPe, STN, substantia nigra, habenula, and amygdala.35 Also reported are direct corticopallidal connections to both GPi and GPe using diffusion tractography,16,40 but the existence and role of these fibers are yet to be fully elucidated. Further complicating the issue, in the macaque, a peripallidal neuronal network composed of large acetylcholinesterase-containing cells related to the nucleus basalis has been shown to project diffusely to neocortex.41 This could mean that direct connections between cortex and GPi, as seen in diffusion tractography, are projections to the cortex that originate from a peripallidal cell mass, or even false-positive connections, isolated due to the close proximity of the GPi to the internal capsule.42

Of primary importance to DBS, the pallidofugal pathways are generally divided into the AL, fasciculus lenticularis (FL), FS, and AS (Fig 4B, -C). The FS and AS have been discussed above. The FL and AL, or pallidothalamic connections, ultimately join together with the cerebellothalamic fibers (DRTT) to form the thalamic fasciculus (TF) before inserting in the ventral thalamus (Fig 4D).35 The pallidofugal fibers of the FS and FL traverse the internal capsule at a perpendicular angle, creating the Edinger comb system, which can be readily seen on susceptibility-weighted imaging (Fig 2C). The AL courses from the inferomedial border along the anterior pole of the GPi, extends anteriorly and medially to cross the internal capsule, passes anteriorly to the STN, and then joins the FL.35 The FL extends from the GPi medial border, extends directly through the internal capsule, and then lies dorsal to the STN and ventral to the ZI, separating these 2 structures before joining the AL to form the TF (Fig 2A).35 The TF then courses dorsal to the ZI and inserts into the ventral thalamus with most fibers from the DRTT entering the VIM, the AL into the ventralis oralis posterior, and the FL into the ventralis oralis anterior (Fig 4D). The ZI is bordered inferiorly by the FL and superiorly by the TF. The relationship of these tracts is crucial, as they likely serve a major therapeutic role in DBS for movement disorders, for instance, DRTT/TF stimulation in alleviating tremor in caudal ZI DBS and reduction of dyskinesia with more dorsal STN stimulation (likely affecting the AL).43

Connectomics.

Support for the functional zones of the STN has been illustrated by several studies. Using diffusion tractography data with local field potential recordings in the STN, high connectivity to the motor and premotor cortices was found in the dorsolateral STN, while the ventral STN showed connectivity to limbic regions, such as the amygdala, hippocampus, and medial temporal regions.44 Connectivity profiles have illustrated the variability in brain networks affected by DBS in treating specific symptoms of PD. Akram et al45 used stimulation modeling combined with diffusion tractography in patients with STN DBS with PD to explore structural connectivity patterns associated with improvement in bradykinesia, rigidity, and tremor. Greater connectivity to the prefrontal cortex and supplemental motor area were more beneficial for rigidity, while connectivity to the supplemental motor area only was associated with improved bradykinesia.45 As may be expected from previously discussed tremor networks, connectivity to the primary motor cortex was associated with greatest benefit in tremor.45

To determine if connectivity measures alone could be used to predict improvement across a cohort, Horn et al46 used group-level resting-state fMRI and diffusion tractography data from existing cohorts to predict improvement in Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Part III motor scores in a group of patients with PD. By employing a group of stimulation volumes to generate structural and functional connectivity maps associated with Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Part III outcomes, models were formulated to predict individual patient outcomes.46 On the basis of solely connectivity data, they were able to predict postoperative motor scores within 15%, highlighting the potential power of connectomics in predicting patient outcomes associated with specific DBS programming settings.46 Similarly, Lin et al47 used machine learning to examine connectivity profiles associated with effective-versus-ineffective electrode contacts and predicted, with 84.9% accuracy, which electrode contacts would be effective in reducing motor symptoms. Additionally, their study illustrated the potential of connectomics to reduce the burden on DBS programmers in the performance of tedious permutation surveys of multiple DBS contacts to determine optimal effectiveness.

The role of connectomics in GPi DBS has been less explored; however, it could potentially offer even greater benefit to programming and targeting than the STN due to the larger size of the GPi. Middlebrooks et al15 evaluated the role of diffusion tractography in predicting outcomes from GPi DBS and found that the changes in Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Part III motor scores in PD correlated primarily with connectivity to the M1 region, followed by the supplemental motor area/premotor cortex.

Dystonia

Dystonia manifests in the form of muscle contractions that can be intermittent or sustained, resulting in phasic or repetitive movements and/or abnormal posture.48 DBS has been used to treat various forms of dystonia, from focal (predominantly cervical) to generalized dystonia. DBS for dystonia targeting the bilateral GPi received a humanitarian device exemption by the FDA in 2003. Multiple clinical trials49⇓-51 have established the efficacy of GPi DBS in primary generalized dystonia, finding that those having the DYT1 gene mutation have a better response to DBS.52

Anatomy.

Relevant anatomy and imaging considerations of the sensorimotor portion of the GPi have been previously discussed (see PD section).

Connectomics.

Connectivity in DBS for dystonia has not been extensively studied. Okromelidze et al53 have recently shown that stimulation volumes with structural and functional connectivity to motor regions of the cerebellum, thalamus, and sensorimotor cortex were correlated with greater improvement in primary generalized dystonia. Similarly, by using diffusion tractography analysis of ventral and dorsal contacts in focal dystonia, Rozanski et al54 found that connections from the more efficacious ventral contacts had greater connectivity to the primary sensorimotor regions, while less efficacious dorsal contacts had greater connectivity to premotor and supplementary motor areas.

Unfortunately, the combination of the heterogeneity of patients with dystonia as well as the relatively low number of patients treated with DBS compared with PD and ET has resulted in greater gaps in understanding connectivity in DBS for dystonia. However, connectomics stands to potentially benefit dystonia more than ET or PD given the lack of reliable, immediate (at the time of stimulation onset) clinical or physiologic markers, which limits confidence in both targeting and subsequent programming. As opposed to the near-immediate change in motor symptoms seen with ET and PD DBS, the effect of DBS in dystonia may take days to weeks to manifest and may change from month to month, resulting in frustrating, unpredictable, and suboptimal clinical outcomes.55 An imaging biomarker, therefore, may result in more successful targeting and programming, greatly benefiting dystonia DBS outcomes.

OCD

The last target to receive humanitarian device exemption by the FDA was the ALIC for treatment of OCD in 2009.56 A multinational, multicenter study by Greenberg et al57 reported symptom reduction and functional improvement in >60% of the patient population, with overall reduction of illness changing from severe at baseline to moderate with DBS treatment. Furthermore, 38% showed clinical remission, according to their Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale score.57 Like dystonia, the lack of an immediate biophysical marker of treatment effect makes DBS targeting and programming challenging; therefore, identifying useful imaging biomarkers stands to benefit OCD outcomes.

Anatomy.

Underlying pathophysiology of OCD is commonly thought to involve frontostriatal dysfunction and abnormal cortico-striato-thalamo-cortical tracts.58 As such, multiple DBS targets have been utilized, including the nucleus accumbens, ventral striatum, and ALIC. Within the FDA-approved target of the ALIC, 2 primary fiber tracts have been discussed with regard to OCD DBS, the anterior thalamic radiations (ATR) and the medial forebrain bundle (MFB), namely what has been described as the superolateral branch (slMFB). The ATR connects the thalamus to the frontal lobe, particularly to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (Fig 5). The classic MFB connects the ventral tegmental area to the nucleus accumbens and olfactory cortex and does not lie within the ALIC but is more ventral in location. The slMFB DBS target, as described by Coenen et al,59 connects the dentate nucleus, ventral tegmental areas, superior and middle frontal gyri, and lateral orbitofrontal cortex. However, this tract has only been described by DTI, and no other confirmation of its existence has been found (see Discussion below). Anatomically, the ATR is described as lying medial to slMFB within ALIC.59

FIG 5.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 5.

Sagittal (A) and posterior oblique views (B) showing the relationship of tracts associated with deep brain stimulation of the ALIC for treatment of OCD. The ATR (Red) extend anteriorly from the thalamus (yellow). The MFB (cyan) connects the ventral tegmental area with the nucleus accumbens and olfactory cortex. The MFB does not traverse the ALIC, but, rather, lies ventral and medial to ALIC. The tracts described as a superolateral branch of the MFB (green) mirror the position of the frontal connections of the anteromedial subthalamic nucleus (purple fibers) within the ALIC—both lying lateral to the ATR. These fibers of the subthalamic nucleus may account for the tractography findings previously reported as the superolateral branch of the MFB (more recently referred to as the projection pathway from the ventral tegmental [vtaPP] area). The subthalamic nucleus is shown in orange.

Connectomics.

One of the first DBS connectivity studies in OCD showed that connectivity to the right middle frontal gyrus (dorsolateral prefrontal cortex) was greater in positive responders, whereas connectivity to the lateral orbitofrontal cortex and ventrolateral prefrontal cortex was associated with nonresponse.60 Similarly, Baldermann et al61 found stimulation of the ATR region, with connection to the medial and lateral prefrontal cortex and right middle frontal gyrus to correlate with greater improvement. Their results showed connectivity with the anatomically correct MFB to be associated with nonresponse. Together, these studies suggest the ATR as a stimulation target within the ALIC.

Others, however, have reported seemingly contradictory findings. Coenen et al62 performed an observational study of direct targeting of the slMFB, employing diffusion tractography in 2 patients, and both showed some benefit with DBS, but this study did not compare stimulation of the ATR. Liebrand et al63 used diffusion tractography of the slMFB and ATR to show greater symptom improvement with stimulation closer to the slMFB. The authors reported “a distinct media-lateral organization of, respectively, the ATR and MFB within the vALIC [ventral ALIC]”; however, the MFB does not traverse the ALIC and is ventral to ATR, not lateral (Fig 5).63,64 Given the described anatomy of the slMFB and DBS response, it is possible that these fibers within the ALIC and lateral to the ATR represent connections of the anteromedial STN, which has also been shown to be an effective DBS target for OCD.65 Here, we show that these fibers of the anteromedial STN that connect the STN to the anterior cingulate cortex, lateral orbitofrontal cortex, and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex65 share a similar course to what has been described as the slMFB (Fig 5).62

In summary, the effect of ALIC DBS in OCD is likely mediated through the ATR or connections of the anteromedial STN to the frontal lobe. There is limited anatomic evidence of the slMFB, short of diffusion tractography, but the anatomic description of this fiber tract, seemingly, corresponds to connections between the anteromedial STN and frontal lobe. Because the MFB does not traverse within the ALIC, it is likely that studies reporting stimulation of the slMFB in ALIC DBS are not utilizing accepted anatomic structures or nomenclature. Due to this conflicting nomenclature, the slMFB fibers have more recently been referred to as the projection pathway from the ventral tegmental area; however, further studies are needed to demonstrate these as a novel pathway versus misidentification of normal anteromedial STN cortical connections.

Epilepsy

Epilepsy is a common disorder (> 1% prevalence in most populations) with drug-resistant epilepsy cases comprising approximately 20%–40% of all patients with epilepsy. Patients who are not candidates for surgical resection or lesioning, such as those with generalized onset, poor localization, or eloquent brain onset, previously had limited treatment options. More recently, several forms of neuromodulation have provided new treatment options, including vagus nerve stimulation, responsive neural stimulation, and DBS. Unfortunately, these technologies are in their infancy, and a thorough understanding of their mechanism and ideal patient selection is not well-known. The most recent of these to be approved by the FDA (in 2018) is bilateral DBS of the ANT. Efficacy and safety of ANT DBS was shown in the Stimulation of the Anterior Nucleus of the Thalamus in Epilepsy (SANTE) trial, which found a 68% responder rate at 5 years.66 While effective in many patients, substantial variability in outcomes was reported.66 Also of note, stimulation-induced adverse effects, including depression and memory impairment, were found, the mechanism of which is not entirely understood.66 Outcome variability was likely related to multiple factors, including differing surgical approaches; variation in patient population; lack of reliable, direct targeting; and challenges in identifying the optimal stimulation settings, because epilepsy DBS lacks an immediate physiologic biomarker seen in other applications (eg, immediate cessation of tremor in movement disorders).67-70

Anatomy.

Much like other applications in DBS, indirect targeting of the ANT was the most widely used method in early studies. Unfortunately, epilepsy is known to be associated with regional thalamic atrophy,71 which questions the utility of employing such indirect targeting in the brain of a patient with long-standing epilepsy. Grewal et al72 have shown that indirect targeting of the ANT produced a wide range of inaccuracies compared with direct ANT targeting in a cohort of patients with epilepsy, which was dependent on the degree of thalamic atrophy. Grewal et al69 showed the utility of fast gray matter acquisition T1 inversion recovery (FGATIR) MR imaging in direct visualization of the ANT (Fig 6A, -B), which is currently the most utilized sequence for direct targeting of ANT.

FIG 6.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 6.

Sagittal 3T FGATIR MR imaging (A) compared with MPRAGE (B) in the same patient. The FGATIR more clearly highlights the course of the mammillothalamic tract (arrow) seen as a dark band extending from the mammillary body, through the thalamus, and terminating at the base of the anterior ANT (outlined by arrowheads). Sagittal view of the main connections of the ANT (purple region) (C). The mammillothalamic tract (green) connects the mamillary body to the ANT. Tracts (blue) then connect the ANT (through the stria terminalis) with the anterior cingulate and cingulate bundle (orange).

The mammillothalamic tract (MMT) is a component of the limbic circuit that connects the mammillary body to the ANT (Fig 6C).73 MMT arises from the anteromedial mammillary body traversing posterior to the insertion of the fornix and extending superiorly within the substance of the thalamus.69,73 The termination of the MMT corresponds to the inferior boundary of the ANT. The continuation of the limbic circuit connects the ANT to the anterior cingulate cortex, traditionally thought to course through the ALIC, but more recent evidence suggests connections extending through the stria terminalis, septal area, and subgenual cingulate (Fig 6C).74 Importantly, recent studies have shown that the greatest response to ANT DBS was with stimulation volumes near the termination of the MMT and into the anterior ANT, which suggests modulation of this circuit that enters via the MMT and exits the anterior pole of the ANT as the biologic basis of seizure control.75,76

Connectomics.

Diffusion tractography of MMT has been previously reported. An initial study77 utilized lengthy diffusion acquisition, replicated with >50% reduction in time in a subsequent study.69 Nevertheless, given the acquisition times, postprocessing, technical knowledge, and management of substantial distortions present in echo-planar imaging, diffusion tractography has not been shown to be of added value to the clear visualization of the MMT present on FGATIR imaging.

The mechanism of ANT DBS is not understood, but fMRI provides valuable insights into the connectivity pattern associated with ANT DBS response. Middlebrooks et al78 used atlas-based resting-state fMRI to show that responders had greater connectivity to multiple nodes of the default mode network compared with nonresponders. Additionally, they showed that anticorrelation of connectivity to the hippocampus was greater in DBS responders.78 These findings are in line with prior animal studies that revealed elevated γ-aminobutyric acid levels in the hippocampus after ANT stimulation, supporting the inhibitory nature of anticorrelated resting-state connectivity. If such connectivity is a predictor of ANT DBS response, this could aid in understanding treatment failure in some patients—for instance, in a small cohort, patients with mesial temporal sclerosis were shown to have impairment of evoked potentials in the hippocampus after ANT stimulation and were all nonresponders.79 If network damage due to epilepsy limits transmission of DBS stimulus within these networks identified by fMRI, treatment may, therefore, be ineffective.

Last, the lack of timely, reliable, clinical biophysical markers of optimal DBS programming may give fMRI the potential to provide a useful in vivo biomarker for device programming. The feasibility of using fMRI to directly visualize areas of the brain affected by stimulation, by using a block design fMRI under the conditions of DBS ON versus DBS OFF, as has been recently shown, produced similar activation patterns within the default mode network and several other areas of the brain.80 While more studies are required to understand the ideal patterns of activation associated with optimal clinical outcomes, fMRI has the potential to be used as a patient-specific in vivo biomarker to select optimal stimulation settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Brain connectomics has led to advances in the understanding of DBS and will continue to shape surgical targeting and programming. The potential for improvements in patient safety and treatment outcomes suggests that the role of neuroimaging in DBS management will only continue to increase. A thorough understanding of relevant functional and structural anatomy is critical to providing neuroradiologic guidance for DBS.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors acknowledge the assistance of Lucy Bahn, PhD, in the preparation of this article.

Footnotes

  • Disclosures: Erik H. Middlebrooks—UNRELATED: Grants/Grants Pending: Boston Scientific Corp, Varian Medical Systems, Comments: Research grant support.* Tito Vivas-Buitrago—UNRELATED: Employment: Mayo Clinic. Joshua K. Wong—UNRELATED: Grants/Grants Pending: National Institutes of Health, 1R25NS108939.* Robert S. Eisinger—UNRELATED: Other: National Institutes of Health, Comments: I am supported by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number F30NS111841. Leonardo Almeida—UNRELATED: Consultancy: Medtronic/Boston Scientific. Matthew R. Burns—RELATED: Grant: Parkinson's Foundation, Comments: I receive salary support through the Parkinson's Foundation; UNRELATED: Grants/Grants Pending: American Parkinson's Disease Association, Comments: I have an early career grant pending with the American Parkinson's Disease Association. Andreas Horn—UNRELATED: Grants/Grants Pending: Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft. Vanessa M. Holanda—UNRELATED: Payment for Development of Educational Presentations: Boston Scientific, Abbott, Medicicor, Gusmed.* *Money paid to the institution.

Indicates open access to non-subscribers at www.ajnr.org

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Franzini A,
    2. Cordella R,
    3. Messina G, et al
    . Targeting the brain: considerations in 332 consecutive patients treated by deep brain stimulation (DBS) for severe neurological diseases. Neurol Sci 2012;33:1285–1303 doi:10.1007/s10072-012-0937-9 pmid:22271259
    CrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. DeLong MR,
    2. Wichmann T
    . Basal ganglia circuits as targets for neuromodulation in Parkinson's disease. JAMA Neurol 2015;72:1354–60 doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2015.2397 pmid:26409114
    CrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Edlow BL,
    2. Mareyam A,
    3. Horn A, et al
    . 7 Tesla MRI of the ex vivo human brain at 100 micron resolution. Sci Data 2019;6:244 doi:10.1038/s41597-019-0254-8 pmid:31666530
    CrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Yeh FC,
    2. Panesar S,
    3. Fernandes D, et al
    . Population-averaged atlas of the macroscale human structural connectome and its network topology. Neuroimage 2018;178:57–68 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.05.027 pmid:29758339
    CrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Yeh FC,
    2. Tseng WY
    . NTU-90: a high angular resolution brain atlas constructed by q-space diffeomorphic reconstruction. Neuroimage 2011;58:91–99 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.06.021 pmid:21704171
    CrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Yeh FC,
    2. Wedeen VJ,
    3. Tseng WY
    . Generalized q-sampling imaging. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2010;29:1626–35 doi:10.1109/TMI.2010.2045126 pmid:20304721
    CrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Ewert S,
    2. Plettig P,
    3. Li N, et al
    . Toward defining deep brain stimulation targets in MNI space: a subcortical atlas based on multimodal MRI, histology and structural connectivity. Neuroimage 2018;170:271–82 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.05.015 pmid:28536045
    CrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Horn A,
    2. Wenzel G,
    3. Irmen F, et al
    . Deep brain stimulation induced normalization of the human functional connectome in Parkinson's disease. Brain 2019;142:3129–43 doi:10.1093/brain/awz239 pmid:31412106
    CrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Horn A,
    2. Li N,
    3. Dembek TA, et al
    . Lead-DBS v2: Towards a comprehensive pipeline for deep brain stimulation imaging. Neuroimage 2019;184:293–316 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.08.068 pmid:30179717
    CrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Flora ED,
    2. Perera CL,
    3. Cameron AL, et al
    . Deep brain stimulation for essential tremor: a systematic review. Mov Disord 2010;25:1550–59 doi:10.1002/mds.23195 pmid:20623768
    CrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Blomstedt P,
    2. Stenmark Persson R,
    3. Hariz GM, et al
    . Deep brain stimulation in the caudal zona incerta versus best medical treatment in patients with Parkinson's disease: a randomised blinded evaluation. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2018;89:710–16 doi:10.1136/jnnp-2017-317219 pmid:29386253
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Eisinger RS,
    2. Wong J,
    3. Almeida L, et al
    . Ventral intermediate nucleus versus zona incerta region deep brain stimulation in essential tremor. Mov Disord Clin Pract 2018;5:75–82 doi:10.1002/mdc3.12565
    CrossRef
  13. 13.↵
    1. Foote KD,
    2. Okun MS
    . Ventralis intermedius plus ventralis oralis anterior and posterior deep brain stimulation for posttraumatic Holmes tremor: two leads may be better than one: technical note. Neurosurgery 2005;56:E445 doi:10.1227/01.neu.0000157104.87448.78 pmid:15794849
    CrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Sammartino F,
    2. Krishna V,
    3. King NK, et al
    . Tractography-based ventral intermediate nucleus targeting: novel methodology and intraoperative validation. Mov Disord 2016;31:1217–25 doi:10.1002/mds.26633 pmid:27214406
    CrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Middlebrooks E,
    2. Tuna I,
    3. Grewal S, et al
    . Segmentation of the globus pallidus internus using probabilistic diffusion tractography for deep brain stimulation targeting in Parkinson's disease. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2018;39:1127–34 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5641 pmid:29700048
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Schlaier J,
    2. Anthofer J,
    3. Steib K, et al
    . Deep brain stimulation for essential tremor: targeting the dentato-rubro-thalamic tract? Neuromodulation 2015;18:105–12 doi:10.1111/ner.12238 pmid:25209587
    CrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Meola A,
    2. Comert A,
    3. Yeh FC, et al
    . The nondecussating pathway of the dentatorubrothalamic tract in humans: human connectome-based tractographic study and microdissection validation. J Neurosurg 2016;124:1406–12 doi:10.3171/2015.4.JNS142741 pmid:26452117
    CrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Marques JP,
    2. Kober T,
    3. Krueger G, et al
    . MP2RAGE, a self bias-field corrected sequence for improved segmentation and T1-mapping at high field. Neuroimage 2010;49:1271–81 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.10.002 pmid:19819338
    CrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Tourdias T,
    2. Saranathan M,
    3. Levesque IR, et al
    . Visualization of intra-thalamic nuclei with optimized white-matter-nulled MPRAGE at 7T. Neuroimage 2014;84:534–45 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.08.069 pmid:24018302
    CrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Jorge J,
    2. Gretsch F,
    3. Najdenovska E, et al
    . Improved susceptibility-weighted imaging for high contrast and resolution thalamic nuclei mapping at 7T. Magn Reson Med 2020;84:1218–34 doi:10.1002/mrm.28197 pmid:32052486
    CrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Middlebrooks EH,
    2. Tuna IS,
    3. Almeida L, et al
    . Structural connectivity-based segmentation of the thalamus and prediction of tremor improvement following thalamic deep brain stimulation of the ventral intermediate nucleus. Neuroimage Clin 2018;20:1266–73 doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2018.10.009 pmid:30318403
    CrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.
    1. Kim W,
    2. Sharim J,
    3. Tenn S, et al
    . Diffusion tractography imaging-guided frameless linear accelerator stereotactic radiosurgical thalamotomy for tremor: case report. J Neurosurg 2018;128:215–21 doi:10.3171/2016.10.JNS161603 pmid:28298033
    CrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.
    1. Pouratian N,
    2. Zheng Z,
    3. Bari AA, et al
    . Multi-institutional evaluation of deep brain stimulation targeting using probabilistic connectivity-based thalamic segmentation. J Neurosurg 2011;115:995–1004 doi:10.3171/2011.7.JNS11250 pmid:21854118
    CrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Tsolaki E,
    2. Downes A,
    3. Speier W, et al
    . The potential value of probabilistic tractography-based for MR-guided focused ultrasound thalamotomy for essential tremor. Neuroimage Clin 2018;17:1019–27 doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2017.12.018 pmid:29527503
    CrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Akram H,
    2. Dayal V,
    3. Mahlknecht P, et al
    . Connectivity derived thalamic segmentation in deep brain stimulation for tremor. Neuroimage Clin 2018;18:130–42 doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2018.01.008 pmid:29387530
    CrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Calabrese E,
    2. Hickey P,
    3. Hulette C, et al
    . Postmortem diffusion MRI of the human brainstem and thalamus for deep brain stimulator electrode localization. Hum Brain Mapp 2015;36:3167–78 doi:10.1002/hbm.22836 pmid:26043869
    CrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Behrens TE,
    2. Johansen-Berg H,
    3. Woolrich MW, et al
    . Non-invasive mapping of connections between human thalamus and cortex using diffusion imaging. Nat Neurosci 2003;6:750–57 doi:10.1038/nn1075 pmid:12808459
    CrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Middlebrooks EH,
    2. Holanda VM,
    3. Tuna IS, et al
    . A method for pre-operative single-subject thalamic segmentation based on probabilistic tractography for essential tremor deep brain stimulation. Neuroradiology 2018;60:303–09 doi:10.1007/s00234-017-1972-2 pmid:29307012
    CrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Al-Fatly B,
    2. Ewert S,
    3. Kubler D, et al
    . Connectivity profile of thalamic deep brain stimulation to effectively treat essential tremor. Brain 2019;142:3086–98 doi:10.1093/brain/awz236 pmid:31377766
    CrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Middlebrooks EH,
    2. Grewal SS,
    3. Holanda VM
    . Complexities of connectivity-based DBS targeting: rebirth of the debate on thalamic and subthalamic treatment of tremor. Neuroimage Clin 2019;22:101761 doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2019.101761 pmid:30987840
    CrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Anderson JS,
    2. Dhatt HS,
    3. Ferguson MA, et al
    . Functional connectivity targeting for deep brain stimulation in essential tremor. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:1963–68 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2638 pmid:21885716
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Greene DJ,
    2. Marek S,
    3. Gordon EM, et al
    . Integrative and network-specific connectivity of the basal ganglia and thalamus defined in individuals. Neuron 2020;105:742–58.e6 doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2019.11.012 pmid:31836321
    CrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Gibson WS,
    2. Jo HJ,
    3. Testini P, et al
    . Functional correlates of the therapeutic and adverse effects evoked by thalamic stimulation for essential tremor. Brain 2016;139:2198–210 doi:10.1093/brain/aww145 pmid:27329768
    CrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Ramirez-Zamora A,
    2. Ostrem JL
    . Globus pallidus interna or subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease: a review. JAMA Neurol 2018;75:367–72 doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2017.4321 pmid:29356826
    CrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Holanda VM,
    2. Okun MS,
    3. Middlebrooks EH, et al
    . Postmortem dissections of common targets for lesion and deep brain stimulation surgeries. Neurosurgery 2020;86:860–72 doi:10.1093/neuros/nyz318 pmid:31504849
    CrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Parent A,
    2. Hazrati L-N
    . Functional anatomy of the basal ganglia. II. The place of subthalamic nucleus and external pallidium in basal ganglia circuitry. Brain Res Rev 1995;20:128–54 doi:10.1016/0165-0173(94)00008-D pmid:7711765
    CrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Alho EJL,
    2. Alho A,
    3. Horn A, et al
    . The ansa subthalamica: a neglected fiber tract. Mov Disord 2020;35:75–80 doi:10.1002/mds.27901 pmid:31758733
    CrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Petersen MV,
    2. Mlakar J,
    3. Haber SN, et al
    . Holographic reconstruction of axonal pathways in the human brain. Neuron 2019;104:1056–64 doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2019.09.030 pmid:31708306
    CrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Eisinger RS,
    2. Cernera S,
    3. Gittis A, et al
    . A review of basal ganglia circuits and physiology: application to deep brain stimulation. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2019;59:9–20 doi:10.1016/j.parkreldis.2019.01.009 pmid:30658883
    CrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Grewal SS,
    2. Holanda VM,
    3. Middlebrooks EH
    . Corticopallidal connectome of the globus pallidus externus in humans: an exploratory study of structural connectivity using probabilistic diffusion tractography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2018;39:2120–25 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5816 pmid:30262639
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  41. 41.↵
    1. Parent A,
    2. De Bellefeuille L
    . Organization of efferent projections from the internal segment of globus pallidus in primate as revealed by flourescence retrograde labeling method. Brain Res 1982;245:201–13 doi:10.1016/0006-8993(82)90802-2 pmid:7127069
    CrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Maier-Hein KH,
    2. Neher PF,
    3. Houde JC, et al
    . The challenge of mapping the human connectome based on diffusion tractography. Nat Commun 2017;8:1349 doi:10.1038/s41467-017-01285-x pmid:29116093
    CrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Aquino CC,
    2. Duffley G,
    3. Hedges DM, et al
    . Interleaved deep brain stimulation for dyskinesia management in Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord 2019;34:1722–27 doi:10.1002/mds.27839 pmid:31483534
    CrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. Accolla EA,
    2. Herrojo Ruiz M,
    3. Horn A, et al
    . Brain networks modulated by subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation. Brain 2016;139:2503–15 doi:10.1093/brain/aww182 pmid:27412387
    CrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    1. Akram H,
    2. Sotiropoulos SN,
    3. Jbabdi S, et al
    . Subthalamic deep brain stimulation sweet spots and hyperdirect cortical connectivity in Parkinson's disease. Neuroimage 2017;158:332–45 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.07.012 pmid:28711737
    CrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    1. Horn A,
    2. Reich M,
    3. Vorwerk J, et al
    . Connectivity predicts deep brain stimulation outcome in Parkinson disease. Ann Neurol 2017;82:67–78 doi:10.1002/ana.24974 pmid:28586141
    CrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    1. Lin H,
    2. Na P,
    3. Zhang D, et al
    . Brain connectivity markers for the identification of effective contacts in subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation. Hum Brain Mapp 2020;41:2028–36 doi:10.1002/hbm.24927 pmid:31951307
    CrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    1. Albanese A,
    2. Bhatia K,
    3. Bressman SB, et al
    . Phenomenology and classification of dystonia: a consensus update. Mov Disord 2013;28:863–73 doi:10.1002/mds.25475 pmid:23649720
    CrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    1. Vidailhet M,
    2. Vercueil L,
    3. Houeto JL, et al
    . Bilateral deep-brain stimulation of the globus pallidus in primary generalized dystonia. N Engl J Med 2005;352:459–67 doi:10.1056/NEJMoa042187 pmid:15689584
    CrossRefPubMed
  50. 50.↵
    1. Vercueil L,
    2. Houeto JL, et al
    1. Vidailhet M
    , French SPIDY Study Group, Vercueil L, Houeto JL, et al. Bilateral, pallidal, deep-brain stimulation in primary generalised dystonia: a prospective 3 year follow-up study. Lancet Neurol 2007;6:223–29 doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(07)70035-2 pmid:17303528
    CrossRefPubMed
  51. 51.↵
    1. Kupsch A,
    2. Benecke R,
    3. Muller J, et al
    . Pallidal deep-brain stimulation in primary generalized or segmental dystonia. N Engl J Med 2006;355:1978–90 doi:10.1056/NEJMoa063618 pmid:17093249
    CrossRefPubMed
  52. 52.↵
    1. Artusi CA,
    2. Dwivedi A,
    3. Romagnolo A, et al
    . Differential response to pallidal deep brain stimulation among monogenic dystonias: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2020;91:426–33 doi:10.1136/jnnp-2019-322169 pmid:32079672
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  53. 53.↵
    1. Okromelidze L,
    2. Tsuboi T,
    3. Eisinger RS, et al
    . Functional and structural connectivity patterns associated with clinical outcomes in deep brain stimulation of the globus pallidus internus for generalized dystonia. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2020;41:508–14 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A6429 pmid:32054614
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  54. 54.↵
    1. Rozanski VE,
    2. Vollmar C,
    3. Cunha JP, et al
    . Connectivity patterns of pallidal DBS electrodes in focal dystonia: a diffusion tensor tractography study. Neuroimage 2014;84:435–42 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.09.009 pmid:24045076
    CrossRefPubMed
  55. 55.↵
    1. Reese R,
    2. Volkmann J
    . Deep brain stimulation for the dystonias: evidence, knowledge gaps, and practical considerations. Mov Disord Clin Pract 2017;4:486–94 doi:10.1002/mdc3.12519 pmid:30363085
    CrossRefPubMed
  56. 56.↵
    1. Tastevin M,
    2. Spatola G,
    3. Régis J, et al
    . Deep brain stimulation in the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder: current perspectives. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat 2019;15:1259–72 doi:10.2147/NDT.S178207 pmid:31190832
    CrossRefPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    1. Greenberg BD,
    2. Gabriels LA,
    3. Malone DA, Jr., et al
    . Deep brain stimulation of the ventral internal capsule/ventral striatum for obsessive-compulsive disorder: worldwide experience. Mol Psychiatry 2010;15:64–79 doi:10.1038/mp.2008.55 pmid:18490925
    CrossRefPubMed
  58. 58.↵
    1. Ahmari SE,
    2. Spellman T,
    3. Douglass NL, et al
    . Repeated cortico-striatal stimulation generates persistent OCD-like behavior. Science 2013;340:1234–39 doi:10.1126/science.1234733 pmid:23744948
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  59. 59.↵
    1. Coenen VA,
    2. Panksepp J,
    3. Hurwitz TA, et al
    . Human medial forebrain bundle (MFB) and anterior thalamic radiation (ATR): imaging of two major subcortical pathways and the dynamic balance of opposite affects in understanding depression. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 2012;24:223–36 doi:10.1176/appi.neuropsych.11080180 pmid:22772671
    CrossRefPubMed
  60. 60.↵
    1. Hartmann CJ,
    2. Lujan JL,
    3. Chaturvedi A, et al
    . Tractography activation patterns in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex suggest better clinical responses in OCD DBS. Front Neurosci 2015;9:519 doi:10.3389/fnins.2015.00519 pmid:26834544
    CrossRefPubMed
  61. 61.↵
    1. Baldermann JC,
    2. Melzer C,
    3. Zapf A, et al
    . Connectivity profile predictive of effective deep brain stimulation in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Biol Psychiatry 2019;85:735–43 doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2018.12.019 pmid:30777287
    CrossRefPubMed
  62. 62.↵
    1. Coenen VA,
    2. Schlaepfer TE,
    3. Goll P, et al
    . The medial forebrain bundle as a target for deep brain stimulation for obsessive-compulsive disorder. CNS Spectr 2017;22:282–89 doi:10.1017/S1092852916000286 pmid:27268576
    CrossRefPubMed
  63. 63.↵
    1. Liebrand LC,
    2. Caan MWA,
    3. Schuurman PR, et al
    . Individual white matter bundle trajectories are associated with deep brain stimulation response in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Brain Stimul 2019;12:353–60 doi:10.1016/j.brs.2018.11.014 pmid:30522916
    CrossRefPubMed
  64. 64.↵
    1. Ding SL,
    2. Royall JJ,
    3. Sunkin SM, et al
    . Comprehensive cellular-resolution atlas of the adult human brain. J Comp Neurol 2016;524:3127–481 doi:10.1002/cne.24080 pmid:27418273
    CrossRefPubMed
  65. 65.↵
    1. Tyagi H,
    2. Apergis-Schoute AM,
    3. Akram H, et al
    . A randomized trial directly comparing ventral capsule and anteromedial subthalamic nucleus stimulation in obsessive-compulsive disorder: clinical and imaging evidence for dissociable effects. Biol Psychiatry 2019;85:726–34 doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2019.01.017 pmid:30853111
    CrossRefPubMed
  66. 66.↵
    1. Salanova V,
    2. Witt T,
    3. Worth R, et al
    . Long-term efficacy and safety of thalamic stimulation for drug-resistant partial epilepsy. Neurology 2015;84:1017–25 doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000001334 pmid:25663221
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  67. 67.↵
    1. Lehtimaki K,
    2. Coenen VA,
    3. Goncalves Ferreira A, et al
    . The surgical approach to the anterior nucleus of thalamus in patients with refractory epilepsy: experience from the international multicenter registry (MORE). Neurosurgery 2019;84:141–50 doi:10.1093/neuros/nyy023 pmid:29554309
    CrossRefPubMed
  68. 68.
    1. Wu C,
    2. D'Haese P-F,
    3. Pallavaram S, et al
    . Variations in thalamic anatomy affect targeting in deep brain stimulation for epilepsy. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 2016;94:387–96 doi:10.1159/000449009 pmid:27846633
    CrossRefPubMed
  69. 69.↵
    1. Grewal SS,
    2. Middlebrooks EH,
    3. Kaufmann TJ, et al
    . Fast gray matter acquisition T1 inversion recovery MRI to delineate the mammillothalamic tract for preoperative direct targeting of the anterior nucleus of the thalamus for deep brain stimulation in epilepsy. Neurosurg Focus 2018;45:E6 doi:10.3171/2018.4.FOCUS18147 pmid:30064328
    CrossRefPubMed
  70. 70.↵
    1. Wang YC,
    2. Grewal SS,
    3. Middlebrooks EH, et al
    . Targeting analysis of a novel parietal approach for deep brain stimulation of the anterior nucleus of the thalamus for epilepsy. Epilepsy Res 2019;153:1–6 doi:10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2019.03.010 pmid:30913474
    CrossRefPubMed
  71. 71.↵
    1. Yang L,
    2. Li H,
    3. Zhu L, et al
    . Localized shape abnormalities in the thalamus and pallidum are associated with secondarily generalized seizures in mesial temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsy Behav 2017;70:259–64 doi:10.1016/j.yebeh.2017.02.011 pmid:28427841
    CrossRefPubMed
  72. 72.↵
    1. Grewal SS,
    2. Middlebrooks EH,
    3. Okromelidze L, et al
    . Variability between direct and indirect targeting of the anterior nucleus of the thalamus. World Neurosurg 2020 Apr 14. [Epub ahead of print] doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2020.03.107 pmid:32302732
    CrossRefPubMed
  73. 73.↵
    1. Baydin S,
    2. Gungor A,
    3. Tanriover N, et al
    . Fiber tracts of the medial and inferior surfaces of the cerebrum. World Neurosurg 2017;98:34–49 doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2016.05.016 pmid:27184897
    CrossRefPubMed
  74. 74.↵
    1. Choi SH,
    2. Kim YB,
    3. Paek SH, et al
    . Papez circuit observed by in vivo human brain with 7.0T MRI super-resolution track density imaging and track tracing. Front Neuroanat 2019;13:17 doi:10.3389/fnana.2019.00017 pmid:30833891
    CrossRefPubMed
  75. 75.↵
    1. Guo W,
    2. Koo BB,
    3. Kim JH, et al
    . Defining the optimal target for anterior thalamic deep brain stimulation in patients with drug-refractory epilepsy. J Neurosurg 2020;1–10 doi:10.3171/2020.2.JNS193226 pmid:32384279
    CrossRefPubMed
  76. 76.↵
    1. Schaper F,
    2. Plantinga BR,
    3. Colon AJ, et al
    . Deep brain stimulation in epilepsy: a role for modulation of the mammillothalamic tract in seizure control? Neurosurgery 2020 May 18. [Epub ahead of print] doi:10.1093/neuros/nyaa141 pmid:32421806
    CrossRefPubMed
  77. 77.↵
    1. Kamali A,
    2. Zhang CC,
    3. Riascos RF, et al
    . Diffusion tensor tractography of the mammillothalamic tract in the human brain using a high spatial resolution DTI technique. Sci Rep 2018;8:5229 doi:10.1038/s41598-018-23452-w pmid:29588461
    CrossRefPubMed
  78. 78.↵
    1. Middlebrooks EH,
    2. Grewal SS,
    3. Stead M, et al
    . Differences in functional connectivity profiles as a predictor of response to anterior thalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation for epilepsy: a hypothesis for the mechanism of action and a potential biomarker for outcomes. Neurosurg Focus 2018;45:E7 doi:10.3171/2018.5.FOCUS18151 pmid:30064322
    CrossRefPubMed
  79. 79.↵
    1. Wang YC,
    2. Kremen V,
    3. Brinkmann BH, et al
    . Probing circuit of Papez with stimulation of anterior nucleus of the thalamus and hippocampal evoked potentials. Epilepsy Res 2020;159:106248 doi:10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2019.106248 pmid:31841958
    CrossRefPubMed
  80. 80.↵
    1. Middlebrooks EH,
    2. Lin C,
    3. Okromelidze L, et al
    . Functional activation patterns of deep brain stimulation of the anterior nucleus of the thalamus. World Neurosurg 2020;136:357–63 doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2020.01.108 pmid:32001414
    CrossRefPubMed
  • Received April 22, 2020.
  • Accepted after revision June 3, 2020.
  • © 2020 by American Journal of Neuroradiology
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology: 41 (9)
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 41, Issue 9
1 Sep 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
Advertisement
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Neuroimaging Advances in Deep Brain Stimulation: Review of Indications, Anatomy, and Brain Connectomics
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Journal of Neuroradiology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Journal of Neuroradiology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Neuroimaging Advances in Deep Brain Stimulation: Review of Indications, Anatomy, and Brain Connectomics
E.H. Middlebrooks, R.A. Domingo, T. Vivas-Buitrago, L. Okromelidze, T. Tsuboi, J.K. Wong, R.S. Eisinger, L. Almeida, M.R. Burns, A. Horn, R.J. Uitti, R.E. Wharen, V.M. Holanda, S.S. Grewal
American Journal of Neuroradiology Sep 2020, 41 (9) 1558-1568; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A6693

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Neuroimaging Advances in Deep Brain Stimulation: Review of Indications, Anatomy, and Brain Connectomics
E.H. Middlebrooks, R.A. Domingo, T. Vivas-Buitrago, L. Okromelidze, T. Tsuboi, J.K. Wong, R.S. Eisinger, L. Almeida, M.R. Burns, A. Horn, R.J. Uitti, R.E. Wharen, V.M. Holanda, S.S. Grewal
American Journal of Neuroradiology Sep 2020, 41 (9) 1558-1568; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A6693
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Purchase

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • ABBREVIATIONS:
    • CONCLUSIONS
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • White matter variability, cognition, and disorders: a systematic review
  • Crossref
  • Google Scholar

This article has not yet been cited by articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

More in this TOC Section

  • Assessment of Heating on Titanium Alloy Cerebral Aneurysm Clips during 7T MRI
  • Quantitative Collateral Assessment on CTP in the Prediction of Stroke Etiology
  • Survey of the American Society of Neuroradiology Membership on the Use and Value of Intracranial Vessel Wall MRI
Show more ADULT BRAIN

Similar Articles

Advertisement

News and Updates

  • Lucien Levy Best Research Article Award
  • Thanks to our 2021 Distinguished Reviewers
  • Press Releases

Resources

  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • How to Participate in a Tweet Chat
  • AJNR Podcast Archive
  • Ideas for Publicizing Your Research
  • Librarian Resources
  • Terms and Conditions

Opportunities

  • Share Your Art in Perspectives
  • Get Peer Review Credit from Publons
  • Moderate a Tweet Chat

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Neurographics
  • ASNR Annual Meeting
  • Fellowship Portal
  • Position Statements

© 2022 by the American Society of Neuroradiology | Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire