Search Results

You are looking at 21 - 30 of 81 items for

  • Author or Editor: Kim J. Burchiel x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Kim J. Burchiel

Restricted access

Kim J. Burchiel

Restricted access

Kim J. Burchiel

Full access

R. Lorie Jacob, Jonah Geddes, Shirley McCartney and Kim J. Burchiel

OBJECT

The objective of this study was to compare the cost of deep brain stimulation (DBS) performed awake versus asleep at a single US academic health center and to compare costs across the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) Clinical Database.

METHODS

Inpatient and outpatient demographic and hospital financial data for patients receiving a neurostimulator lead implant (from the first quarter of 2009 to the second quarter of 2014) were collected and analyzed. Inpatient charges included those associated with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) procedure code 0293 (implantation or replacement of intracranial neurostimulator lead). Outpatient charges included all preoperative charges ≤ 30 days prior to implant and all postoperative charges ≤ 30 days after implant. The cost of care based on reported charges and a cost-to-charge ratio was estimated. The UHC database was queried (January 2011 to March 2014) with the same ICD-9 code. Procedure cost data across like hospitals (27 UHC hospitals) conducting similar DBS procedures were compared.

RESULTS

Two hundred eleven DBS procedures (53 awake and 158 asleep) were performed at a single US academic health center during the study period. The average patient age ( ± SD) was 65 ± 9 years old and 39% of patients were female. The most common primary diagnosis was Parkinson’s disease (61.1%) followed by essential and other forms of tremor (36%). Overall average DBS procedure cost was $39,152 ± $5340. Asleep DBS cost $38,850 ± $4830, which was not significantly different than the awake DBS cost of $40,052 ± $6604. The standard deviation for asleep DBS was significantly lower (p ≤ 0.05). In 2013, the median cost for a neurostimulator implant lead was $34,052 at UHC-affiliated hospitals that performed at least 5 procedures a year. At Oregon Health & Science University, the median cost was $17,150 and the observed single academic health center cost for a neurostimulator lead implant was less than the expected cost (ratio 0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

In this single academic medical center cost analysis, DBS performed asleep was associated with a lower cost variation relative to the awake procedure. Furthermore, costs compared favorably to UHC-affiliated hospitals. While asleep DBS is not yet standard practice, this center exclusively performs asleep DBS at a lower cost than comparable institutions.

Restricted access

Editorial

Depth electrodes and outcome

Kim J. Burchiel

Restricted access

Kim J. Burchiel

Restricted access

Kim J. Burchiel

Restricted access

Kim J. Burchiel, Shirley McCartney, Albert Lee and Ahmed M. Raslan

Object

In this prospective study the authors' objective was to evaluate the accuracy of deep brain stimulation (DBS) electrode placement using image guidance for direct anatomical targeting with intraoperative CT.

Methods

Preoperative 3-T MR images were merged with intraoperative CT images for planning. Electrode targets were anatomical, based on the MR images. A skull-mounted NexFrame system was used for electrode placement, and all procedures were performed under general anesthesia. After electrode placement, intraoperative CT images were merged with trajectory planning images to calculate accuracy. Accuracy was assessed by both vector error and deviation off the planned trajectory.

Results

Sixty patients (33 with Parkinson disease, 26 with essential tremor, and 1 with dystonia) underwent the procedure. Patient's mean age was 64 ± 9.5 years. Over an 18-month period, 119 electrodes were placed (all bilateral, except one). Electrode implant locations were the ventral intermediate nucleus (VIM), globus pallidus internus (GPI), and subthalamic nucleus (STN) in 25, 23, and 12 patients, respectively. Target accuracy measurements were as follows: mean vector error 1.59 ± 1.11 mm and mean deviation off trajectory 1.24 ± 0.87 mm. There was no statistically significant difference between the accuracy of left and right brain electrodes. There was a statistically significant (negative) correlation between the distance of the closest approach of the electrode trajectory to the ventricular wall of the lateral ventricle and vector error (r2 = −0.339, p < 0.05, n = 76), and the deviation from the planned trajectory (r2 = −0.325, p < 0.05, n = 77). Furthermore, when the distance from the electrode trajectory and the ventricular wall was < 4 mm, the correlation of the ventricular distance to the deviation from the planned trajectory was stronger (r2 = −0.419, p = 0.05, n = 19). Electrodes placed in the GPI were significantly more accurate than those placed in the VIM (p < 0.05). Only 1 of 119 electrodes required intraoperative replacement due to a vector error > 3 mm. In this series there was one infection and no intraparenchymal hemorrhages.

Conclusions

Placement of DBS electrodes using an intraoperative CT scanner and the NexFrame achieves an accuracy that is at least comparable to other methods.

Free access

Eric M. Thompson, Kim J. Burchiel and Ahmed M. Raslan

For confirming the correct location of the radiofrequency electrode before creation of a lesion, percutaneous CT-guided trigeminal tractotomy–nucleotomy is most commonly performed with the patient prone and awake. However, for patients whose facial pain and hypersensitivity are so severe that the patients are unable to rest their face on a support (as required with prone positioning), awake CT-guided tractotomy-nucleotomy might not be feasible. The authors describe 2 such patients, for whom percutaneous intraoperative CT-guided tractotomy-nucleotomy under general anesthesia was successful. One patient was a 79-year-old man with profound left facial postherpetic neuralgia, who was unable to tolerate awake CT-guided tractotomy-nucleotomy, and the other was a 45-year-old woman with intractable hemicranial pain that developed after a right frontal lesionectomy for epilepsy. Each patient underwent a percutaneous intraoperative CT-guided tractotomy-nucleotomy under general anesthesia. No complications occurred, and each patient reported excellent pain relief for up to 6 and 3 months after surgery, respectively. Percutaneous intraoperative CT-guided tractotomy-nucleotomy performed on anesthetized patients is effective for facial postherpetic neuralgia and postoperative hemicranial neuralgia.