Introduction: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) hardware complications have been traditionally managed by removal of the entire system. Explantation of the system results in prolonged interruption to the patient’s care and potential challenges when considering reimplantation of the cranial leads. The purpose of this study was to understand whether complete explantation can be avoided for patients initially presenting with wound dehiscence and/or infection of hardware. Methods: We performed a retrospective study that included 30 cases of wound dehiscence or infection involving the DBS system. Patients underwent reoperation without explantation of the DBS system, with partial explanation, or with complete explantation as initial management of the complication. Results: A total of 17/30 cases were managed with hardware-sparing wound revisions. The majority presented with wound dehiscence (94%), with the scalp (n = 9) as the most common location. This was successful in 76.5% of patients (n = 13). Over 11/30 patients were managed with partial explantation. The complication was located at the generator (91%) or at the scalp (9%). Partial explantation was successful in 64% of patients (n = 7). In cases that underwent a lead-sparing approach, 33% of patients ultimately required removal of the intracranial lead, and 2/30 cases of hardware infection were managed initially with total explantation. Discussion/Conclusion: Wound dehiscence can be successfully managed without complete removal of the DBS system in most cases. In cases of infection, removing the involved component(s) and sparing the intracranial leads may be considered. Wound revision without removal of the entire DBS system is safe and can improve quality of life by preventing or shortening the withdrawal of DBS treatment.

1.
Atchley
TJ
,
Laskay
NMB
,
Sherrod
BA
,
Rahman
AKMF
,
Walker
HC
,
Guthrie
BL
.
Reoperation for device infection and erosion following deep brain stimulation implantable pulse generator placement
.
J Neurosurg
.
2019
:
1
8
.
2.
Chan
DT
,
Zhu
XL
,
Yeung
JH
,
Mok
VC
,
Wong
E
,
Lau
C
,
.
Complications of deep brain stimulation: a collective review
.
Asian J Surg
.
2009
;
32
(
4
):
258
63
.
3.
Constantoyannis
C
,
Berk
C
,
Honey
CR
,
Mendez
I
,
Brownstone
RM
.
Reducing hardware-related complications of deep brain stimulation
.
Can J Neurol Sci
.
2005
;
32
(
2
):
194
200
.
4.
Fenoy
AJ
,
Simpson
RK
Jr
.
Management of device-related wound complications in deep brain stimulation surgery
.
J Neurosurg
.
2012
;
116
(
6
):
1324
32
.
5.
Jitkritsadakul
O
,
Bhidayasiri
R
,
Kalia
SK
,
Hodaie
M
,
Lozano
AM
,
Fasano
A
.
Systematic review of hardware-related complications of deep brain stimulation: do new indications pose an increased risk
.
Brain Stimul
.
2017
;
10
(
5
):
967
76
.
6.
Weaver
FM
,
Follett
K
,
Stern
M
,
Hur
K
,
Harris
C
,
Marks
WJ
Jr
,
.
Bilateral deep brain stimulation vs best medical therapy for patients with advanced Parkinson disease: a randomized controlled trial
.
JAMA
.
2009
;
301
(
1
):
63
73
.
7.
Williams
A
,
Gill
S
,
Varma
T
,
Jenkinson
C
,
Quinn
N
,
Mitchell
R
,
.
Deep brain stimulation plus best medical therapy versus best medical therapy alone for advanced Parkinson’s disease (PD SURG trial): a randomised, open-label trial
.
Lancet Neurol
.
2010
;
9
(
6
):
581
91
.
8.
Obeso
JA
,
Obeso
JA
,
Olanow
CW
,
Rodriguez-Oroz
MC
,
Krack
P
,
Kumar
R
,
.
Deep-brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus or the pars interna of the globus pallidus in Parkinson’s disease
.
N Engl J Med
.
2001
;
345
(
13
):
956
63
.
9.
Deuschl
G
,
Schade-Brittinger
C
,
Krack
P
,
Volkmann
J
,
Schäfer
H
,
Bötzel
K
,
.
A randomized trial of deep-brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease
.
N Engl J Med
.
2006
;
355
(
9
):
896
908
.
10.
Helmers
AK
,
Lübbing
I
,
Birkenfeld
F
,
Witt
K
,
Synowitz
M
,
Mehdorn
HM
,
.
Complications of impulse generator exchange surgery for deep brain stimulation: a single-center, retrospective study
.
World Neurosurg
.
2018
;
113
:
e108
e12
.
11.
Abode-Iyamah
KO
,
Chiang
HY
,
Woodroffe
RW
,
Park
B
,
Jareczek
FJ
,
Nagahama
Y
,
.
Deep brain stimulation hardware-related infections: 10-year experience at a single institution
.
J Neurosurg
.
2018
:
1
10
.
12.
Lanotte
M
,
Verna
G
,
Panciani
PP
,
Taveggia
A
,
Zibetti
M
,
Lopiano
L
,
.
Management of skin erosion following deep brain stimulation
.
Neurosurg Rev
.
2009
;
32
(
1
):
111
5
; discussion 114–5.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10143-008-0158-0.
13.
Oh
MY
,
Abosch
A
,
Kim
SH
,
Lang
AE
,
Lozano
AM
.
Long-term hardware-related complications of deep brain stimulation
.
Neurosurgery
.
2002
;
50
(
6
):
1268
74
; discussion 1274–6.http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00006123-200206000-00017.
14.
Sillay
KA
,
Larson
PS
,
Starr
PA
.
Deep brain stimulator hardware-related infections: incidence and management in a large series
.
Neurosurgery
.
2008
;
62
(
2
):
360
6
; discussion 366–7.http://dx.doi.org/10.1227/01.neu.0000316002.03765.33.
15.
Boviatsis
EJ
,
Stavrinou
LC
,
Themistocleous
M
,
Kouyialis
AT
,
Sakas
DE
.
Surgical and hardware complications of deep brain stimulation. A seven-year experience and review of the literature
.
Acta Neurochir (Wien)
.
2010
;
152
(
12
):
2053
62
.
16.
Temel
Y
,
Ackermans
L
,
Celik
H
,
Spincemaille
GH
,
van der Linden
C
,
Walenkamp
GH
,
.
Management of hardware infections following deep brain stimulation
.
Acta Neurochir (Wien)
.
2004
;
146
(
4
):
355
361
; discussion 61.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00701-004-0219-2.
17.
Baizabal Carvallo
JF
,
Simpson
R
,
Jankovic
J
.
Diagnosis and treatment of complications related to deep brain stimulation hardware
.
Mov Disord
.
2011
;
26
(
8
):
1398
406
.
18.
Gorgulho
A
,
Juillard
C
,
Uslan
DZ
,
Tajik
K
,
Aurasteh
P
,
Behnke
E
,
.
Infection following deep brain stimulator implantation performed in the conventional versus magnetic resonance imaging-equipped operating room
.
J Neurosurg
.
2009
;
110
(
2
):
239
46
.
You do not currently have access to this content.