Introduction: There has been rapid advancement in the development of deep brain stimulation (DBS) as a treatment option for adults for neurological and neuropsychiatric conditions. Here, we present a scoping review of completed and ongoing clinical trials focused on DBS in pediatric populations, highlighting key knowledge gaps. Methods: Three databases (PubMed, OVID, and Embase) and the clinicaltrials.gov registry were queried to identify clinical trials for DBS in pediatric cohorts (age ≤18 years). Prospective and retrospective case series were excluded. No restrictions were placed on the diagnoses or measured clinical outcomes. Individual patient demographics, diagnosis, DBS target, and primary endpoints were extracted and summarized. Results: A total of 13 clinical trials were included in the final review, consisting of 9 completed trials (357 screened) and 4 ongoing trials (82 screened). Of the completed trials, 6 studied dystonia (both inherited and acquired; participants aged 4–18 years) and 3 studied drug-resistant epilepsy (participants aged 4–17 years). Among the 6 trials for dystonia, 5 used the Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale (BFMDRS) as the primary endpoint. There were a total of 18 adverse events documented across 63 participants, with 5 of 9 studies reporting adverse events. Ongoing clinical trials are evaluating DBS for dystonia (N = 2), epilepsy (N = 1), and self-injurious behavior (N = 1). Conclusions: This scoping review summarizes the landscape of clinical trials for DBS in children and youth. In dystonia, further research is warranted with more relevant pediatric outcome measures and for understudied patient subgroups and targets. There are also significant gaps in our understanding of evaluating the role of DBS in other neurological and neurodevelopmental disorders in pediatric populations.

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has become a mainstay treatment for adult movement disorders such as Parkinson’s disease and essential tremor [1, 2]. In adults, DBS has also been subject to at least phase I clinical trials in many other disorders, including neuropsychiatric conditions (e.g., anorexia nervosa [3], obsessive-compulsive disorder [4], and major depressive disorder [5]), traumatic brain injury [6], disorders of consciousness [7], and obesity [8], among others. A recent review identified nearly 400 clinical trials spanning 28 different disorders and 26 brain targets in adult populations [9]. Nearly 40% of these were indications other than movement disorders, including psychiatric disorders, epilepsy, and addiction-related disorders.

DBS is considered off-label and/or investigational for all pediatric indications, with the exception of dystonia for which there is an FDA Humanitarian Device Exemption for children who are 7 years and older. The applications of DBS for disorders that present primarily in childhood beyond dystonia [10‒12] remain controversial. For example, although DBS has been successfully used for Tourette’s syndrome in children [13], data are based on open-label studies, which are prone to bias. In the example of Tourette’s syndrome, several groups have advocated for its disuse in pediatric cohorts due to the possibility of self-remission of symptoms with age [14‒16]. Furthermore, children represent an intrinsically vulnerable population due to concerns regarding informed consent, autonomy, capacity, and long-term consequences of invasive treatments [17]. This may temper enthusiasm for conducting clinical trials in pediatric populations. Therefore, the application of DBS in children and youth poses numerous medical, bioethical, and regulatory challenges.

Much of the published literature comprises limited case series with few dedicated trials in pediatric cohorts [18]. It is challenging for adult DBS literature to translate directly to children for many reasons. First, the primary outcome measures used in adult trials may be less valid in pediatrics. For example, the Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale (BFMDRS), a commonly used primary outcome measure, is influenced by age and longitudinal assessments for the same child may be confounded by physiologically immature movements and posturing [19]. Furthermore, measures in adults may not be the most relevant in a pediatric population. While BFMDS has not showed a significant change following DBS for acquired dystonia in children, other meaningful pediatric-specific outcome measures may be influenced, including pain and comfort, school attendance, seating tolerance, and caregiver burden [20]. Other considerations in children also warrant specific studies in this population, including ongoing brain development and timing of surgery (i.e., anatomical size differences), differential risks of DBS procedures in children (e.g., anesthetic considerations) [21], and neurodevelopmental diagnoses in childhood that may be amenable to neuromodulation during critical windows for brain development (e.g., cerebral palsy) [22]. The lack of robust evidence of applying DBS to pediatric conditions is often cited as a prohibitive factor in considering DBS therapy in this vulnerable population [17].

This scoping review aims to characterize the clinical trial landscape of pediatric DBS by reviewing completed and ongoing trials in children and youth up to age 18 years. We found a disproportionate representation of DBS studies for dystonia and highlight the gaps in knowledge due to limited clinical research for other pediatric neurological and neurodevelopmental disorders.

Search Strategy

A literature search was conducted of articles available across three electronic databases: PubMed, OVID, and Embase, published before July 7, 2024. This search was completed per PRISMA-ScR guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) [23]. Search strategies were refined in collaboration with an institutional librarian, with the following terms for PubMed: ([pediatric] OR [children] OR [youth]) AND ([“deep brain stimulation”] OR [“responsive neurostimulation”] OR [“neuromodulation”] OR [“DBS”]). These terms were adjusted to meet the requirements of the other databases. The search included inception to July 7, 2024. No publication status, year, or language restrictions were made to capture the full scope of the literature. A PRISMA schematic provides an overview of the search process (Fig. 1). A separate search for active clinical trials of pediatric DBS, which captured studies not yet published in PubMed/OVID/Embase, was performed using the publicly available trial registry, ClinicalTrials.gov (https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/), maintained by the US National Library of Medicine. Where possible, reported endpoints were synthesized in a meta-analysis to determine outcomes after DBS. The “metafor” function from the “meta” package of RStudio version 2023.09.1 (RStudio Inc., Boston, MA, USA) was used to conduct a pooled meta-analysis of proportions for studies reporting outcomes in respect to the BFMDS and evaluate the heterogeneity across the included studies.

Fig. 1.

PRISMA flow diagram indicating the number of published records identified, screened, eligible, and included in the review.

Fig. 1.

PRISMA flow diagram indicating the number of published records identified, screened, eligible, and included in the review.

Close modal

Screening and Eligibility Criteria

After removing duplicate studies, two authors (K.M. and Y.J.) performed an independent initial screen of the abstracts to exclude irrelevant articles. This was followed by a full-text review of all remaining articles (K.M. and Y.J.). Discrepancies were reviewed and settled by a third author (H.S.). We included all clinical trials and prospective studies evaluating DBS in pediatric patients for any indication of whether the primary outcome was a clinical response to DBS. We excluded retrospective studies, case series, case reports, and studies primarily recruiting adult patients or using another form of neuromodulation (e.g., transcranial magnetic stimulation). A comprehensive screening checklist is provided in online supplementary Table 1 (for all online suppl. material, see https://doi.org/10.1159/000543289).

Data Extraction and Analysis

Collected data included patient demographics (age, sex), clinical diagnosis, disease duration, DBS target, primary endpoint (clinical rating scale), DBS response (pre- vs. post-op clinical scores), DBS duration until follow-up, and reported adverse events (Table 1). Two authors (Y.J., K.M.) independently determined a risk of bias assessment using the Risk Of Bias In Nonrandomized Studies – of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool [24], which consisted of 7 domains of potential bias (i.e., confounding, participant selection, classification of interventions, deviation from intended interventions, missing data/attrition, outcome measurements, and reporting) and resulted in an overall bias score.

Table 1.

Published clinical trials of DBS for pediatric populations

DiagnosisStudy (first author, publication year, location)Study designNAge (years)Sex (% male)Disease duration (years)DBS targetPrimary endpoint (clinical rating scale)Surgical techniquesDBS response (pre- and post-DBS clinical scores, %improvement with DBS)DBS duration (follow-up in months)Adverse events
Cerebral palsy (dyskinetic) Koy et al. [25], 2022, Germany RCT 16 13.4±2.9 62.5 n/a GPi (bilateral) Caregiver Priorities & Child Health Index of Life with Disabilities (CPCHILD) DBS implantation as per institutional protocols Pre-DBS: 46.5±14.4 12 Infection (n = 1), ICH (n = 1), programming/device use error (n = 2), worsening symptoms (n = 1), fatigue (n = 1), headache (n = 2), hypersalivation (n = 1), seroma (n = 1), scar pain (n = 1) 
Frequency: 90–130 Hz Post-DBS: 50.7±17.0 
Pulse width: 90–150 μs Improvement: 8.7±21.8% 
Amplitude: 0.2 mA  
Dystonia (generalized) Borggraefe et al. [26], 2010, Germany Prospective 9±2.2 50 5.3±4.1 GPi (bilateral) BFMDRS MRI-guided stereotaxy using Leksell/Lerch system Pre-DBS: 51.2±14.0 14.8±3.2 None reported 
Permanent implantation after 5 days of testing Post-DBS: 14.0±11.7 
 Improvement: 74.9±16.7% 
Dystonia Candela et al. [27], 2018, Spain Prospective 12±3.3 50 7.2±3.9 GPi (bilateral) BFMDRS Preoperative MRI used to identify coordinates for GPi target. Head stabilized using a robotic arm head-holder. Starting parameters 60 μs, 130 Hz, and adjusted accordingly Pre-DBS: 44±22 Electrode migration (n = 1), transient dysarthria (n = 1), transient gait instability (n = 1) 
Post-DBS: 17±16 
Improvement: 61.8±26.4% 
Dystonia Legros et al. [28], 2004, France Prospective 10 12±3.4 40 n/a GPi (bilateral) BFMDRS Electrodes placed based on MRI-determined coordinates. Parameters set to 450 μs and 130 Hz, amplitude 0.8A and 2.4V Pre-DBS: 58.6±29.2 9.0±1.1 Not specified 
Post-DBS: 44±23.7 
Improvement: 24.4±16.5 
Dystonia (secondary, from perinatal brain injury (N = 3), encephalitis (N = 1)) San Luciano et al. [29], 2020, USA Phase I clinic trial 13.0±2.9 50 11.0±3.6 Vop/Vim (bilateral) BFMDRS DBS implantation as per institutional protocol, using a skull-mounted aiming device. Parameters set to 60 ms, 130 Hz, 0–5 V Pre-DBS: 54.5±10.3 12 None reported 
Post-DBS: 58.7±19.6 
Improvement: 1.6±13.6% 
Dystonia (primary) Starr et al. [30], 2014, USA Prospective 11.0±2.8 67 3.0±1.8 GPi (bilateral) BFMDRS Skull-mounted framing device with proprietary ClearPoint software used. Head positioned in 4-point head holder, with reduced pressure applied for children <10 years Pre-DBS: 39.5±16.1 12 Transient neurological deficit 
Post-DBS: 4.9±5.7 
Improvement: 75.4±12.5 
Epilepsy Chabardès et al. [31], 2002, France Prospective 10.3±5.0 67 7.5±3.3 STN (bilateral) Seizure frequency DBS implantation as per institutional protocols; radionics stereotactic frame used for positioning, electrodes implanted based on ventriculography-based coordinates 2/3 patients had a significant reduction in seizure frequency 17.0±9.9 Infection (n = 1) 
Epilepsy Suresh et al. [32], 2024, Canada Randomized control trial, patient preference 18 13.9±2.7 (VNS), 14.8±2.7 (add on DBS) 55.6 n/a CMN or anterior nucleus (bilateral) Seizure frequency DBS implantation as per institutional protocol. Parameters set to 90 μs and 145 Hz, amplitude 2.2–5 mA Significant reduction in seizure frequency (51.9% vs. 12.3%, p = 0.047) 12 None reported 
Epilepsy (Lennox-Gastaut syndrome) Velasco et al. [33], 2006, Mexico Prospective 9.8±2.9 n/a 7.4±6.7 CMN thalamus (bilateral) Seizure frequency DBS implantation as per institutional protocol. Parameters set to 0.45 ms, 130 Hz 6/9 participants experienced reduced seizure frequency 18 Skin erosion requiring explanation (n = 2) 
DiagnosisStudy (first author, publication year, location)Study designNAge (years)Sex (% male)Disease duration (years)DBS targetPrimary endpoint (clinical rating scale)Surgical techniquesDBS response (pre- and post-DBS clinical scores, %improvement with DBS)DBS duration (follow-up in months)Adverse events
Cerebral palsy (dyskinetic) Koy et al. [25], 2022, Germany RCT 16 13.4±2.9 62.5 n/a GPi (bilateral) Caregiver Priorities & Child Health Index of Life with Disabilities (CPCHILD) DBS implantation as per institutional protocols Pre-DBS: 46.5±14.4 12 Infection (n = 1), ICH (n = 1), programming/device use error (n = 2), worsening symptoms (n = 1), fatigue (n = 1), headache (n = 2), hypersalivation (n = 1), seroma (n = 1), scar pain (n = 1) 
Frequency: 90–130 Hz Post-DBS: 50.7±17.0 
Pulse width: 90–150 μs Improvement: 8.7±21.8% 
Amplitude: 0.2 mA  
Dystonia (generalized) Borggraefe et al. [26], 2010, Germany Prospective 9±2.2 50 5.3±4.1 GPi (bilateral) BFMDRS MRI-guided stereotaxy using Leksell/Lerch system Pre-DBS: 51.2±14.0 14.8±3.2 None reported 
Permanent implantation after 5 days of testing Post-DBS: 14.0±11.7 
 Improvement: 74.9±16.7% 
Dystonia Candela et al. [27], 2018, Spain Prospective 12±3.3 50 7.2±3.9 GPi (bilateral) BFMDRS Preoperative MRI used to identify coordinates for GPi target. Head stabilized using a robotic arm head-holder. Starting parameters 60 μs, 130 Hz, and adjusted accordingly Pre-DBS: 44±22 Electrode migration (n = 1), transient dysarthria (n = 1), transient gait instability (n = 1) 
Post-DBS: 17±16 
Improvement: 61.8±26.4% 
Dystonia Legros et al. [28], 2004, France Prospective 10 12±3.4 40 n/a GPi (bilateral) BFMDRS Electrodes placed based on MRI-determined coordinates. Parameters set to 450 μs and 130 Hz, amplitude 0.8A and 2.4V Pre-DBS: 58.6±29.2 9.0±1.1 Not specified 
Post-DBS: 44±23.7 
Improvement: 24.4±16.5 
Dystonia (secondary, from perinatal brain injury (N = 3), encephalitis (N = 1)) San Luciano et al. [29], 2020, USA Phase I clinic trial 13.0±2.9 50 11.0±3.6 Vop/Vim (bilateral) BFMDRS DBS implantation as per institutional protocol, using a skull-mounted aiming device. Parameters set to 60 ms, 130 Hz, 0–5 V Pre-DBS: 54.5±10.3 12 None reported 
Post-DBS: 58.7±19.6 
Improvement: 1.6±13.6% 
Dystonia (primary) Starr et al. [30], 2014, USA Prospective 11.0±2.8 67 3.0±1.8 GPi (bilateral) BFMDRS Skull-mounted framing device with proprietary ClearPoint software used. Head positioned in 4-point head holder, with reduced pressure applied for children <10 years Pre-DBS: 39.5±16.1 12 Transient neurological deficit 
Post-DBS: 4.9±5.7 
Improvement: 75.4±12.5 
Epilepsy Chabardès et al. [31], 2002, France Prospective 10.3±5.0 67 7.5±3.3 STN (bilateral) Seizure frequency DBS implantation as per institutional protocols; radionics stereotactic frame used for positioning, electrodes implanted based on ventriculography-based coordinates 2/3 patients had a significant reduction in seizure frequency 17.0±9.9 Infection (n = 1) 
Epilepsy Suresh et al. [32], 2024, Canada Randomized control trial, patient preference 18 13.9±2.7 (VNS), 14.8±2.7 (add on DBS) 55.6 n/a CMN or anterior nucleus (bilateral) Seizure frequency DBS implantation as per institutional protocol. Parameters set to 90 μs and 145 Hz, amplitude 2.2–5 mA Significant reduction in seizure frequency (51.9% vs. 12.3%, p = 0.047) 12 None reported 
Epilepsy (Lennox-Gastaut syndrome) Velasco et al. [33], 2006, Mexico Prospective 9.8±2.9 n/a 7.4±6.7 CMN thalamus (bilateral) Seizure frequency DBS implantation as per institutional protocol. Parameters set to 0.45 ms, 130 Hz 6/9 participants experienced reduced seizure frequency 18 Skin erosion requiring explanation (n = 2) 

BFMDRS, Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale; CMN, centromedian nucleus; GPi, globus pallidus internus; ICH, internal cerebral hemorrhage; RCT, randomized control trial; Vim, ventral intermediate nucleus of the thalamus; Vom, ventralis oralis pars medialis.

The literature search yielded 487 studies, of which 130 were duplicates (Fig. 1). A total of 357 studies were screened, of which 317 were deemed not relevant; of these, 36 were retrospective reviews and case series of pediatric DBS; most were mainly focused on dystonia or epilepsy. There were four studies that included Tourette’s syndrome, and one study on post-trauma tremors, and another that included cases of DBS done for GNAO-1-related movement disorders. The remaining studies omitted at the abstract and screening stage were for adult patients (e.g., Parkinson’s disease), non-DBS-related neuromonitoring (e.g., TMS), review papers, or anima/preclinical studies. With the addition of 2 studies identified via text references and a second literature search, 42 studies underwent full-text review. Thirty-three studies were excluded due to a predominantly adult patient population (N = 18), non-DBS intervention (N = 7), insufficient data (N = 6), nonclinical DBS outcome (N = 1), and nonclinical/prospective study design (N = 1). Overall, 9 published studies were included in this review, which collectively included 78 participants across 3 study designs (prospective study, N = 6, phase I clinical trial, N = 1; randomized control trial, N = 2), published between 2002 and 2024 (Fig. 2a). Among these studies, 6 focused on dystonia, and 3 on epilepsy. The country of study origin was diverse, including France (N = 2), Germany (N = 2), USA (N = 2), Canada (N = 1), Mexico (N = 1), and Spain (N = 1). Overall, 3 studies relied on industry funding [21, 30, 28].

Fig. 2.

Summary figures of the nine clinical trials included in this review (a) and the four ongoing clinical trials (b), organized by indication.

Fig. 2.

Summary figures of the nine clinical trials included in this review (a) and the four ongoing clinical trials (b), organized by indication.

Close modal

Dystonia

The majority of published clinical trials studied dystonia (Table 1). Of the 6 studies, four had no specific inclusion/exclusion criteria [26‒28, 30], while the others varied in these criteria. The other two studies specifically recruited patients with acquired dystonia (i.e., exclusion of inherited forms of dystonia) [25, 29]. The goals and primary outcomes of each study also differed. For example, Candela et al. [27] and Starr et al. [30] focused on the safety and accuracy of robot- and MRI-guided DBS placement, respectively. Borggraefe et al. [26] determined whether the TOR1A mutation was associated with a positive therapeutic response to DBS. Furthermore, Legros et al. [28] specifically evaluated changes in resting tone and posture with DBS.

For 5/6 dystonia studies, the primary outcome was the Burke-Fahn Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale (BFMDRS). Overall, four studies reported a decrease in post-DBS BFMDRS scores (i.e., lower BFMDRS scores indicate less impairment), with an average improvement in dystonic symptoms of 1.6 ± 13.6–75.4 ± 12.5 across 6–12 months [26‒28, 30]. On the other hand, in San Luciano et al. [29], post-DBS BFMDRS scores after 12 months were higher than pre-DBS baselines (i.e., clinical worsening with bilateral Vom/Vim DBS for dystonia secondary to perinatal brain injury or encephalitis). However, clinical outcomes varied widely among participants, with differences between pre- and post-DBS BFMDRS scores ranging from +0.5 to −25 points, and no overall significant clinical difference was observed with stimulation. Koy et al. [25] used the Caregiver Priorities and Child Health Index of Life with Disabilities (CPCHILD) [34] as a primary outcome. CPCHILD approximates a patient’s overall health and functional status by relying on proxy measures such as caregiver burden, activities of daily living, communication, and mobility [34]. There was an insignificant 4-point increase in CPCHILD scores after DBS (i.e., higher CPCHILD scores indicate less impairment), with considerable variation between patients. However, there was a significant improvement in the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM, 1.1 ± 1.5 points [95% CI 0.2–1.9; p = 0.020]), a secondary outcome measure. COPM is an assessment tool to evaluate changes in the self-perception of productivity, self-care, and leisure. There was also a significant improvement in the physical health component of the 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36, 5.1 ± 6.2 points [95% CI 0.7–9.6; p = 0.028]), a widely used quality-of-life outcome measure.

The most commonly studied target for dystonia in pediatrics was the globus pallidus internus (GPi), known to be a well-established DBS target for dystonia in adult populations [35‒37]. Other targets included the bilateral ventralis oralis posterior/ventralis intermedius (Vop/Vim) [29], and 1 patient in Starr et al. [30] underwent subthalamic nucleus (STN)-DBS as they were enrolled in another trial for cervical dystonia [38].

We performed a meta-analysis of 5 of the 6 studies focusing on dystonia, which included individual patient-level BFMDS data allowing for pooled analysis. A BFMDS improvement of >16.6% was deemed to be clinically significant [39]. The pooled proportion of post-DBS BFMDS improvement was 0.91 (95% CI 0.77–0.99) (Fig. 3), with moderate heterogeneity across these (I2 = 20%).

Fig. 3.

Forest plot of fixed-effects proportional meta-analysis on proportion of patients with significant post-DBS BFMDRS improvement.

Fig. 3.

Forest plot of fixed-effects proportional meta-analysis on proportion of patients with significant post-DBS BFMDRS improvement.

Close modal

Epilepsy

Three clinical trials were completed in epilepsy, two of which were small, single-arm prospective studies. Charbadès et al. [31] evaluated 5 patients after bilateral STN-DBS (two adult participants were omitted in the current analysis). There was no significant difference in seizure frequency after DBS in 1 pediatric patient, while the other 2 patients had a 67.8% and 80.7% reduction in monthly seizure frequency. The STN was selected based on early animal studies and the author’s previous success with STN-DBS for Parkinson’s disease. Alternatively, Velasco et al. [33] targeted the centromedian nucleus of the thalamus (CM) for Lennox-Gastaut syndrome in 9 patients. Bilateral CM-DBS was selected based on the author’s previous success with this target in a subset of adult patients with this childhood-onset epilepsy syndrome [40]. The average seizure reduction rate was 52.0% across 9 pediatric patients (range 0–100%), with 6 patients experiencing an overall reduction in seizure frequency [33]. A larger single-center study compared add-on DBS versus continued vagus nerve stimulation for childhood epilepsy (ADVANCE) [32]. This partially randomized patient preference comparative trial evaluated the role of add-on anterior nucleus or CM-DBS in children who had recurrent seizures after vagus nerve stimulation. At the 12-month follow-up visit, there was a significant reduction in seizure frequency with DBS (51.9% seizure reduction with VNS+DBS vs. 12.3% seizure reduction with VNS only, p = 0.047).

Risk of Bias Assessment

Bias risk was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool for each study (online suppl. Table 1). All published studies had a profound risk of bias, owing to the inherent limitations of single-arm studies relying solely on pretest/posttest measurements. Of the 7 domains comprising ROBINS-I, all studies had a serious risk of bias in at least one domain. This most commonly occurred due to deviation from the intended intervention, given the presumed systematic differences between the pretest and posttest individuals. Studies exempt from bias risk assessment were the crossover RCT by Koy et al. [25] and the study by Legros et al. [28], which provided comparisons to healthy controls. Suresh et al. [32] conducted a patient-selection RCT, which evaluated the role of add-on DBS for patients who did not respond to vagal nerve stimulation; there were a subset of 4-children that were initially in the control arm but crossed over to the DBS group. All but 3 studies [25, 27, 28] also had a serious risk of bias concerning participant selection due to poorly defined inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Adverse Events

Adverse events were documented in 5 of 9 studies, totaling 18 events across 63 participants. However, it is unclear whether these represent 18 unique adverse events or if participants had more than one adverse event. Documented events included infection (N = 4), transient neurological deficits (N = 3), device error (N = 2), and headache (N = 2), as well as isolated reports of device migration (N = 1), intracranial hemorrhage (N = 1), worsening symptoms (N = 1), fatigue (N = 1), hypersalivation (N = 1), skin seroma (N = 1), and postoperative pain (N = 1).

Ongoing Clinical Trials

A comprehensive search of the US-based trial registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, was also performed to assess ongoing, unpublished clinical trials of DBS in pediatrics. This search resulted in 4 trials currently investigating pediatric DBS for dystonia (N = 1) and epilepsy (N = 1), as well as novel indications, including cerebral palsy (N = 1) and self-injurious behavior (SIB) associated with autism spectrum disorder (N = 1) (Table 2; Fig. 2b). Among the ongoing clinical trials, 1 randomized control trial with a published protocol is examining the efficacy of cerebellar (dentate nucleus) DBS for dyskinetic cerebral palsy (NCT06122675) [41]. The other three trials consist of single-arm prospective studies, including the Children’s Adaptive DBS for Epilepsy Trial (CADET, NCT05437393), Thalamic DBS for Secondary Dystonia in Children and Young Adults (DBSVop, NCT03078816), and bilateral nucleus accumbens DBS in Children with Severe Self-Injurious Behaviours (NCT03982888).

Table 2.

Ongoing registered clinical trials of DBS for pediatric populations

StudyStudy designLocationDiagnosisDBS targetOutcome measure
Children’s Adaptive Deep Brain Stimulation for Epilepsy Trial (CADET): Pilot (CADET Pilot, NCT05437393) Single-arm, multi-site London, UK Epilepsy (Lennox-Gastaut syndrome) CMN (bilateral) Feasibility and safety trial 
Deep Brain Stimulation in Children with Severe Self-Injurious Behaviours (NCT03982888) Phase I, nonblinded, nonrandomized, pilot trial Toronto, Canada Self-injurious behaviors in autism spectrum disorder Nucleus accumbens (bilateral) Changes in repetitive behaviors (Repetitive Behaviors Scale-Revised) 
Thalamic Deep Brain Stimulation for Secondary Dystonia in Children and Young Adults (DBSVop, NCT03078816) Open-label single-group trial San Francisco, USA Dystonia Thalamus (bilateral) Change from baseline in Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale 
Cerebellar Deep Brain Stimulation for Movement Disorders in Cerebral Palsy in Children and Young Adults (NCT06122675) Randomized, crossover trial San Francisco, USA Cerebral palsy Cerebellum (bilateral) Movement Disorder-Childhood Rating Scale 4–18 Revised 
StudyStudy designLocationDiagnosisDBS targetOutcome measure
Children’s Adaptive Deep Brain Stimulation for Epilepsy Trial (CADET): Pilot (CADET Pilot, NCT05437393) Single-arm, multi-site London, UK Epilepsy (Lennox-Gastaut syndrome) CMN (bilateral) Feasibility and safety trial 
Deep Brain Stimulation in Children with Severe Self-Injurious Behaviours (NCT03982888) Phase I, nonblinded, nonrandomized, pilot trial Toronto, Canada Self-injurious behaviors in autism spectrum disorder Nucleus accumbens (bilateral) Changes in repetitive behaviors (Repetitive Behaviors Scale-Revised) 
Thalamic Deep Brain Stimulation for Secondary Dystonia in Children and Young Adults (DBSVop, NCT03078816) Open-label single-group trial San Francisco, USA Dystonia Thalamus (bilateral) Change from baseline in Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale 
Cerebellar Deep Brain Stimulation for Movement Disorders in Cerebral Palsy in Children and Young Adults (NCT06122675) Randomized, crossover trial San Francisco, USA Cerebral palsy Cerebellum (bilateral) Movement Disorder-Childhood Rating Scale 4–18 Revised 

ADVANCE, add-on deep brain stimulation versus continued vagus nerve stimulation for childhood epilepsy; CADET, Children’s Adaptive Deep Brain Stimulation for Epilepsy Trial; CMN, centromedian nucleus.

Compared to adult populations, the literature pertaining to DBS in pediatric populations remains sparse. The current scoping review summarizes the landscape of completed and ongoing pediatric clinical trials, excluding less rigorous study designs, including case series. Compared to adults, where there are nearly 400 registered clinical trials, only 13 (9 completed, 4 ongoing) trials were identified in pediatric populations [9]. We describe limited, albeit expanding indications that include cerebral palsy and SIB, small sample sizes, and a high risk of bias. Further clinical research is needed to evaluate the role of DBS in children for a broader range of neurological and neurodevelopmental disorders.

The most commonly studied indication for pediatric DBS in the context of a clinical trial was dystonia, with 6 of 9 identified studies in this review focusing on this neurological disorder. Dystonia is a hyperkinetic movement disorder characterized by abnormal posturing, contractures, and repetitive motions. There are several axes of classification, including clinical features such as age of onset, anatomical distribution of symptoms, associated features, timing of symptoms, and inherited vs. acquired dystonia [42]. Based on the efficacy of GPi DBS for adult movement disorders, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a Humanitarian Device Exemption (HDE) for GPi DBS in children with dystonia aged 7 and older [43]. The meta-analysis of the 5 studies using BFMDRS as the primary outcome revealed a pooled proportion of improvement of 0.91; given the heterogeneity of the disease and outcome measurements, it is difficult to make direct comparisons to historical adult cohorts. Notably, due to the limited studies in our review, we were unable to group studies or patients based on the type/etiology of dystonia.

It may not be necessary to conduct a large randomized study for established indications such as GPi-DBS for generalized or segmental torsional dystonia. The positive open-label data show beyond equipoise that treatment may be beneficial and lessons gleaned from the treatment of adults may inform decisions in pediatric populations. There remains, however, much to be understood for the treatment of dystonia. For example, the investigation of other targets, including the Vom/Vim or dentate nucleus [41, 44], warrants further rigorous testing. Further trials for populations outside of the FDA HDE are also worthwhile, including DBS in children under the age of 7 years, different programming parameters, and studies to assess other quality-of-life-based measures particularly in the context of acquired dystonia [19, 20].

Ongoing research into biomarkers and relevant outcome measures of response to DBS is also important, particularly given that the optimal outcome for clinical trials of DBS in children remains elusive. In dystonia, the BFMDRS remains a widely used rating score in clinical practice and research. Despite its ubiquity, a major limitation of this scale is the uncertainty regarding clinically significant changes. Historically, studies use an arbitrary 25% cut-off for clinical efficacy, while Pintér et al. [45] demonstrated that any improvement greater than 16.6% was clinically significant. Another consideration is that BFMDRS improvement may not correlate with the quality of life improvement [46], which is better captured on scales such as the PedsQL Measurement Model [47], which is not a standard metric used in the DBS literature [48]. Some newer measures, such as the Caregiver Priorities and Child Health Index of Life with Disabilities [34] questionnaire used by Koy et al. [25], aim to characterize overall quality of life and well-being by accounting for activities of daily life, mobility, and emotional changes. This may capture clinical changes more meaningfully for the individual patient, particularly children, and their caregivers.

Epilepsy was the second most common indication for pediatric DBS, with 30 patients implanted. Overall, the mean reduction in seizure frequency across the participants included in this review was 52.0%, compared to a 75% mean reduction at 7 years in adult patients [49], possibly indicating unique outcomes in pediatric cohorts. Only 1 of 3 epilepsy studies targeted the anterior thalamic nucleus, the most widely used target for drug-resistant epilepsy in adults, likely reflecting differences in epilepsy syndromes between adults and children [50]. Charbadès et al. [31] targeted the STN, a less common target for epilepsy but thought to be well suited for managing motor/myoclonic seizures [50]. The centromedian nucleus (CMN) was used as a target by Velasco et al. [33] for patients with intractable Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, based on the results of an earlier study in adults [40]. One of the ongoing clinical trials (CADET, NCT05437393) is also studying bilateral CMN-DBS for children with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome but using adaptive technologies. These and future studies will clarify the optimal DBS target and stimulation paradigms for refractory pediatric epilepsy.

One alternative explanation for the dearth of clinical research in DBS for novel indications in children is that DBS is not understudied but rather may not be necessary, useful, or pragmatic. Such a view is contradicted by an emerging body of preclinical research in childhood disorders that has highlighted common circuitopathies that may be amenable to neuromodulation. For example, disordered impulsivity is common to numerous childhood-onset neurodevelopmental disorders including attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder [51, 52] and severe SIB [53, 54] in children with autism spectrum disorder. Rodent models of repetitive, stereotyped, and compulsive behavior demonstrate hyperactivity in the striatal interneurons and their cortical projections [55, 56]. Optogenetic manipulation of these striatal projections modulates the frequency and severity of excessive grooming [57, 58], the rodent equivalent of SIB [59]. These preclinical studies have motivated an ongoing phase I study in children (NCT03982888).

In this study, half (i.e., 5 of 9) studies reported adverse events, most of which were hardware-related (i.e., 8 of 18 events). This is in keeping with previous reports of more hardware-related complications in pediatric populations (up to 18% [60]) compared to adults (approximately 8% in adult counterparts [61]). This may relate to the population itself, the different etiologies being treatment or the device. This DBS leads and implantable pulse generator are designed for adults, children have a smaller proportion of subcutaneous fat in children, and there is a more significant cumulative lifetime risk of infection with repeated need for batter replacements. Some of these risks may be mitigated through the development of smaller, more flexible, or antibiotic impregnated devices [62].

This review also highlighted the small number of active clinical trials dedicated to pediatric DBS (N = 4) compared to nearly 400 trials for adult patients across multiple indications and targets [9]. While there is a clear need for well-designed studies based on valid neuroscience in pediatric populations, the enthusiasms for such studies need to be tempered by pragmatism and ethical considerations. Children represent an exquisitely vulnerable patient population, and research efforts need to recognize this unique status. There is a need for clinical equipoise prior to engaging in clinical research, which may not exist in the presence of well-conducted retrospective studies or in the setting of translational data from the adult literature. Furthermore, we have previously published an ethical framework for the conduct of DBS clinical research in pediatric populations [22]. The five tenants of the framework include: (1) study design and conduct in the context of the best interest of the child; (2) hypotheses, outcomes, and procedures viewed through a developmental lens; (3) discussion of what is known and unknown regarding risk profile both, including timing of intervention; (4) cautious application of adult data to pediatrics; and (5) diligent reporting of positive and negative studies.

We also highlight several limitations to the current scoping review. Although the primary purpose of the current scoping review was to highlight gaps in knowledge to inform future directions within the field of pediatric DBS, we did attempt a meta-analysis of included studies. We were only able to conduct this meta-analysis of five studies reporting outcomes using BFMDRS. There was moderate heterogeneity among these included studies, limiting the generalizability of these findings. Second, pediatric specific considerations were often underreported, including head fixation techniques, target accuracy assessments, and use of microelectrode recordings. Finally, we did not include mixed studies of pediatric and adult cohorts. Most of these studies were in older literature and did not provide individual participant data. The current work can therefore be understood as an overview of knowledge gaps in pediatric-specific research.

This scoping review provides an overview of the clinical trial landscape for pediatric DBS. Dystonia and epilepsy were the most commonly studied indications, with generally positive outcomes reported. The literature in pediatric populations in general remains sparse. While DBS remains a promising therapy for refractory neurological and psychiatric disorders in adults, it has not been studied in children. Larger, well-designed studies with rigorous methodology and biologically sound target selection and stimulation parameters are needed to clarify the efficacy and scope of pediatric DBS.

A statement of ethics is not applicable because this study is based exclusively on the published literature.

G.M.I. is an advisor for LivaNova Inc., Medtronic Inc., and Synergia Inc. C.G. is an advisor for Medtronic Inc. and Ipsen Inc. A.G.W. is a consultant for Monteris Medical Inc. All other authors declare no competing interests.

This work was supported by Abe Bresver Chair in Functional Neurosurgery (G.M.I.), the Hospital for Sick Children Centre for Brain and Mental Health Program Development Grant (G.M.I., C.G.), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (I.E.H.), and the UofT/UHN Chair in Neuromodulation (A.F.). The authors have no financial supports or sources of funding to disclose.

Y.J., K.M., and I.E.H.: conceptualization, data curation, writing – original draft, and writing – review and editing; H.S.: data curation and writing – review and editing; N.W. and S.B.: conceptualization and writing – review and editing; and C.G., A.F. (Fasano), A.H., A.W., and G.M.I.: conceptualization, writing – original draft, and writing – review and editing. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.

This paper is a systematic review; the data are all derived from previously published trials and papers. The databases we used to search for our primary articles are outlined in the Methods section and in our supplementary materials. All further inquiries may be directed towards the corresponding author.

1.
Elias
GJB
,
Namasivayam
AA
,
Lozano
AM
.
Deep brain stimulation for stroke: current uses and future directions
.
Brain Stimul
.
2018
;
11
(
1
):
3
28
.
2.
Anderson
WS
,
Lenz
FA
.
Surgery Insight: deep brain stimulation for movement disorders
.
Nat Clin Pract Neurol
.
2006
;
2
(
6
):
310
20
.
3.
Lipsman
N
,
Woodside
DB
,
Giacobbe
P
,
Hamani
C
,
Carter
JC
,
Norwood
SJ
, et al
.
Subcallosal cingulate deep brain stimulation for treatment-refractory anorexia nervosa: a phase 1 pilot trial
.
Lancet
.
2013
;
381
(
9875
):
1361
70
.
4.
Lee
DJ
,
Dallapiazza
RF
,
De Vloo
P
,
Elias
GJB
,
Fomenko
A
,
Boutet
A
, et al
.
Inferior thalamic peduncle deep brain stimulation for treatment-refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder: a phase 1 pilot trial
.
Brain Stimul
.
2019
;
12
(
2
):
344
52
.
5.
Wu
Y
,
Mo
J
,
Sui
L
,
Zhang
J
,
Hu
W
,
Zhang
C
, et al
.
Deep brain stimulation in treatment-resistant depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis on efficacy and safety
.
Front Neurosci
.
2021
;
15
:
655412
.
6.
Schiff
ND
,
Giacino
JT
,
Butson
CR
,
Choi
EY
,
Baker
JL
,
O’Sullivan
KP
, et al
.
Thalamic deep brain stimulation in traumatic brain injury: a phase 1, randomized feasibility study
.
Nat Med
.
2023
;
29
(
12
):
3162
74
.
7.
Chudy
D
,
Deletis
V
,
Paradžik
V
,
Dubroja
I
,
Marčinković
P
,
Orešković
D
, et al
.
Deep brain stimulation in disorders of consciousness: 10 years of a single center experience
.
Sci Rep
.
2023
;
13
(
1
):
19491
.
8.
Shivacharan
RS
,
Rolle
CE
,
Barbosa
DAN
,
Cunningham
TN
,
Feng
A
,
Johnson
ND
, et al
.
Pilot study of responsive nucleus accumbens deep brain stimulation for loss-of-control eating
.
Nat Med
.
2022
;
28
(
9
):
1791
6
.
9.
Harmsen
IE
,
Elias
GJB
,
Beyn
ME
,
Boutet
A
,
Pancholi
A
,
Germann
J
, et al
.
Clinical trials for deep brain stimulation: current state of affairs
.
Brain Stimul
.
2020
;
13
(
2
):
378
85
.
10.
Hale
AT
,
Monsour
MA
,
Rolston
JD
,
Naftel
RP
,
Englot
DJ
.
Deep brain stimulation in pediatric dystonia: a systematic review
.
Neurosurg Rev
.
2020
;
43
(
3
):
873
80
.
11.
Gelineau-Morel
R
,
Kruer
MC
,
Garris
JF
,
Abu Libdeh
A
,
Barbosa
DAN
,
Coffman
KA
, et al
.
Deep Brain Stimulation for Pediatric Dystonia: a review of the literature and suggested programming algorithm
.
J Child Neurol
.
2022
;
37
(
10–11
):
813
24
.
12.
DiFrancesco
MF
,
Halpern
CH
,
Hurtig
HH
,
Baltuch
GH
,
Heuer
GG
.
Pediatric indications for deep brain stimulation
.
Childs Nerv Syst
.
2012
;
28
(
10
):
1701
14
.
13.
Coulombe
M-A
,
Elkaim
LM
,
Alotaibi
NM
,
Gorman
DA
,
Weil
AG
,
Fallah
A
, et al
.
Deep brain stimulation for Gilles de la Tourette syndrome in children and youth: a meta-analysis with individual participant data
.
J Neurosurg Pediatr
.
2019
;
23
(
2
):
236
46
.
14.
Porta
M
,
Sassi
M
,
Menghetti
C
,
Servello
D
.
The need for a proper definition of a “treatment refractoriness” in tourette syndrome
.
Front Integr Neurosci
.
2011
;
5
:
22
.
15.
Porta
M
,
Servello
D
,
Sassi
M
,
Brambilla
A
,
Defendi
S
,
Priori
A
, et al
.
Issues related to deep brain stimulation for treatment-refractory Tourette’s syndrome
.
Eur Neurol
.
2009
;
62
(
5
):
264
73
.
16.
Bloch
MH
,
Leckman
JF
.
Clinical course of Tourette syndrome
.
J Psychosom Res
.
2009
;
67
(
6
):
497
501
.
17.
Muñoz
KA
,
Kostick
K
,
Torgerson
L
,
Zuk
P
,
Kalwani
L
,
Sanchez
C
, et al
.
Pressing ethical issues in considering pediatric deep brain stimulation for obsessive-compulsive disorder
.
Brain Stimul
.
2021
;
14
(
6
):
1566
72
.
18.
Ashkan
K
,
Mirza
AB
,
Tambirajoo
K
,
Furlanetti
L
.
Deep brain stimulation in the management of paediatric neuropsychiatric conditions: current evidence and future directions
.
Eur J Paediatr Neurol
.
2021
;
33
:
146
58
.
19.
Kuiper
MJ
,
Vrijenhoek
L
,
Brandsma
R
,
Lunsing
RJ
,
Burger
H
,
Eggink
H
, et al
.
The burke-fahn-marsden dystonia rating scale is age-dependent in healthy children
.
Mov Disord Clin Pract
.
2016
;
3
(
6
):
580
6
.
20.
Gimeno
H
,
Tustin
K
,
Selway
R
,
Lin
J-P
.
Beyond the burke–fahn–marsden dystonia rating scale: deep brain stimulation in childhood secondary dystonia
.
Eur J Paediatr Neurol
.
2012
;
16
(
5
):
501
8
.
21.
Koy
A
,
Bockhorn
N
,
Kühn
AA
,
Schneider
G-H
,
Krause
P
,
Lauritsch
K
, et al
.
Adverse events associated with deep brain stimulation in patients with childhood-onset dystonia
.
Brain Stimul
.
2019
;
12
(
5
):
1111
20
.
22.
Davidson
B
,
Elkaim
LM
,
Lipsman
N
,
Ibrahim
GM
.
Editorial. An ethical framework for deep brain stimulation in children
.
Neurosurg Focus
.
2018
;
45
(
3
):
E11
.
23.
Tricco
AC
,
Lillie
E
,
Zarin
W
,
O’Brien
KK
,
Colquhoun
H
,
Levac
D
, et al
.
PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation
.
Ann Intern Med
.
2018
;
169
(
7
):
467
73
.
24.
Sterne
JA
,
Hernán
MA
,
Reeves
BC
,
Savović
J
,
Berkman
ND
,
Viswanathan
M
, et al
.
ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions
.
BMJ
.
2016
;
355
:
i4919
.
25.
Koy
A
,
Kühn
AA
,
Huebl
J
,
Schneider
G-H
,
van Riesen
AK
,
Eckenweiler
M
, et al
.
Quality of life after deep brain stimulation of pediatric patients with dyskinetic cerebral palsy: a prospective, single-arm, multicenter study with a subsequent randomized double-blind crossover (STIM-CP)
.
Mov Disord
.
2022
;
37
(
4
):
799
811
.
26.
Borggraefe
I
,
Mehrkens
JH
,
Telegravciska
M
,
Berweck
S
,
Bötzel
K
,
Heinen
F
.
Bilateral pallidal stimulation in children and adolescents with primary generalized dystonia: report of six patients and literature-based analysis of predictive outcomes variables
.
Brain Dev
.
2010
;
32
(
3
):
223
8
.
27.
Candela
S
,
Vanegas
MI
,
Darling
A
,
Ortigoza-Escobar
JD
,
Alamar
M
,
Muchart
J
, et al
.
Frameless robot-assisted pallidal deep brain stimulation surgery in pediatric patients with movement disorders: precision and short-term clinical results
.
J Neurosurg Pediatr
.
2018
;
22
(
4
):
416
25
.
28.
Legros
A
,
Diakonova
N
,
Cif
L
,
Hemm
S
,
Vayssière
N
,
Coubes
P
, et al
.
Accelerometric measurement of involuntary movements during pallidal deep brain stimulation of patients with generalized dystonia
.
Brain Res Bull
.
2004
;
64
(
4
):
363
9
.
29.
San Luciano
M
,
Robichaux-Viehoever
A
,
Dodenhoff
KA
,
Gittings
ML
,
Viser
AC
,
Racine
CA
, et al
.
Thalamic deep brain stimulation for acquired dystonia in children and young adults: a phase 1 clinical trial
.
J Neurosurg Pediatr
.
2021
;
27
(
2
):
203
12
.
30.
Starr
PA
,
Markun
LC
,
Larson
PS
,
Volz
MM
,
Martin
AJ
,
Ostrem
JL
.
Interventional MRI-guided deep brain stimulation in pediatric dystonia: first experience with the ClearPoint system
.
J Neurosurg Pediatr
.
2014
;
14
(
4
):
400
8
.
31.
Chabardès
S
,
Kahane
P
,
Minotti
L
,
Koudsie
A
,
Hirsch
E
,
Benabid
A-L
.
Deep brain stimulation in epilepsy with particular reference to the subthalamic nucleus
.
Epileptic Disord
.
2002
;
4
(
S3
):
S83
93
.
32.
Suresh
H
,
Mithani
K
,
Warsi
N
,
Ochi
A
,
Otsubo
H
,
Drake
JM
, et al
.
Add-on deep brain stimulation versus continued vagus nerve stimulation for childhood epilepsy (ADVANCE): a partially randomized patient preference trial
.
Ann Neurol
.
2024
;
96
(
2
):
405
11
.
33.
Velasco
AL
,
Velasco
F
,
Jiménez
F
,
Velasco
M
,
Castro
G
,
Carrillo-Ruiz
JD
, et al
.
Neuromodulation of the centromedian thalamic nuclei in the treatment of generalized seizures and the improvement of the quality of life in patients with lennox–gastaut syndrome
.
Epilepsia
.
2006
;
47
(
7
):
1203
12
.
34.
Narayanan
UG
,
Fehlings
D
,
Weir
S
,
Knights
S
,
Kiran
S
,
Campbell
K
.
Initial development and validation of the Caregiver Priorities and Child Health Index of Life with Disabilities (CPCHILD)
.
Dev Med Child Neurol
.
2006
;
48
(
10
):
804
12
.
35.
Coubes
P
,
Cif
L
,
El Fertit
H
,
Hemm
S
,
Vayssiere
N
,
Serrat
S
, et al
.
Electrical stimulation of the globus pallidus internus in patients with primary generalized dystonia: long-term results
.
J Neurosurg
.
2004
;
101
(
2
):
189
94
.
36.
Kupsch
A
,
Benecke
R
,
Müller
J
,
Trottenberg
T
,
Schneider
G-H
,
Poewe
W
, et al
.
Pallidal deep-brain stimulation in primary generalized or segmental dystonia
.
N Engl J Med
.
2006
;
355
(
19
):
1978
90
.
37.
Kupsch
A
,
Kuehn
A
,
Klaffke
S
,
Meissner
W
,
Harnack
D
,
Winter
C
, et al
.
Deep brain stimulation in dystonia
.
J Neurol
.
2003
;
250
(
Suppl 1
):
I47
52
.
38.
Ostrem
JL
,
Racine
CA
,
Glass
GA
,
Grace
JK
,
Volz
MM
,
Heath
SL
, et al
.
Subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation in primary cervical dystonia
.
Neurology
.
2011
;
76
(
10
):
870
8
.
39.
Pinter
MM
,
Gerstenbrand
F
,
Dimitrijevic
MR
.
Epidural electrical stimulation of posterior structures of the human lumbosacral cord: 3. Control of spasticity
.
Spinal Cord
.
2000
;
38
(
9
):
524
31
.
40.
Velasco
F
,
Velasco
M
,
Jiménez
F
,
Velasco
AL
,
Brito
F
,
Rise
M
, et al
.
Predictors in the treatment of difficult-to-control seizures by electrical stimulation of the centromedian thalamic nucleus
.
Neurosurgery
.
2000
;
47
(
2
):
295
305
.
41.
San Luciano
M
,
Oehrn
CR
,
Wang
SS
,
Tolmie
JS
,
Wiltshire
A
,
Graff
RE
, et al
.
Protocol for combined N-of-1 trials to assess cerebellar neurostimulation for movement disorders in children and young adults with dyskinetic cerebral palsy
.
BMC Neurol
.
2024
;
24
(
1
):
145
.
42.
Albanese
A
,
Sorbo
FD
,
Comella
C
,
Jinnah
HA
,
Mink
JW
,
Post
B
, et al
.
Dystonia rating scales: critique and recommendations
.
Mov Disord
.
2013
;
28
(
7
):
874
83
.
43.
FDA executive summary
.
44.
Cajigas
I
,
Morrison
MA
,
Luciano
MS
,
Starr
PA
.
Cerebellar deep brain stimulation for the treatment of movement disorders in cerebral palsy
.
J Neurosurg
.
2023
;
139
(
3
):
605
14
.
45.
Pintér
D
,
Janszky
J
,
Kovács
N
.
Minimal clinically important differences for burke-fahn-marsden dystonia rating scale and 36-item short-form health Survey
.
Mov Disord
.
2020
;
35
(
7
):
1218
23
.
46.
Jahanshahi
M
,
Torkamani
M
,
Beigi
M
,
Wilkinson
L
,
Page
D
,
Madeley
L
, et al
.
Pallidal stimulation for primary generalised dystonia: effect on cognition, mood and quality of life
.
J Neurol
.
2014
;
261
(
1
):
164
73
.
47.
PedsQL TM
.
Pediatric quality of life inventory TM
. [Internet]. [cited 2024 Mar 20]. Available from: https://www.pedsql.org/about_pedsql.html
48.
Lins
L
,
Carvalho
FM
.
SF-36 total score as a single measure of health-related quality of life: scoping review
.
SAGE Open Med
.
2016
;
4
:
2050312116671725
.
49.
Touma
L
,
Dansereau
B
,
Chan
AY
,
Jetté
N
,
Kwon
C-S
,
Braun
KPJ
, et al
.
Neurostimulation in people with drug-resistant epilepsy: systematic review and meta-analysis from the ILAE Surgical Therapies Commission
.
Epilepsia
.
2022
;
63
(
6
):
1314
29
.
50.
Zangiabadi
N
,
Ladino
LD
,
Sina
F
,
Orozco-Hernández
JP
,
Carter
A
,
Téllez-Zenteno
JF
.
Deep brain stimulation and drug-resistant epilepsy: a review of the literature
.
Front Neurol
.
2019
;
10
:
601
.
51.
Winstanley
CA
,
Eagle
DM
,
Robbins
TW
.
Behavioral models of impulsivity in relation to ADHD: translation between clinical and preclinical studies
.
Clin Psychol Rev
.
2006
;
26
(
4
):
379
95
.
52.
Patros
CHG
,
Alderson
RM
,
Kasper
LJ
,
Tarle
SJ
,
Lea
SE
,
Hudec
KL
.
Choice-impulsivity in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): a meta-analytic review
.
Clin Psychol Rev
.
2016
;
43
:
162
74
.
53.
Richards
C
,
Davies
L
,
Oliver
C
.
Predictors of self-injurious behavior and self-restraint in autism spectrum disorder: towards a hypothesis of impaired behavioral control
.
J Autism Dev Disord
.
2017
;
47
(
3
):
701
13
.
54.
Richards
C
,
Oliver
C
,
Nelson
L
,
Moss
J
.
Self-injurious behaviour in individuals with autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability
.
J Intellect Disabil Res
.
2012
;
56
(
5
):
476
89
.
55.
Corbit
VL
,
Manning
EE
,
Gittis
AH
,
Ahmari
SE
.
Strengthened inputs from secondary motor cortex to striatum in a mouse model of compulsive behavior
.
J Neurosci
.
2019
;
39
(
15
):
2965
75
.
56.
Gage
GJ
,
Stoetzner
CR
,
Wiltschko
AB
,
Berke
JD
.
Selective activation of striatal fast spiking interneurons during choice execution
.
Neuron
.
2010
;
67
(
3
):
466
79
.
57.
Ahmari
SE
,
Spellman
T
,
Douglass
NL
,
Kheirbek
MA
,
Simpson
HB
,
Deisseroth
K
, et al
.
Repeated cortico-striatal stimulation generates persistent OCD-like behavior
.
Science
.
2013
;
340
(
6137
):
1234
9
.
58.
Burguière
E
,
Monteiro
P
,
Feng
G
,
Graybiel
AM
.
Optogenetic stimulation of lateral orbitofronto-striatal pathway suppresses compulsive behaviors
.
Science
.
2013
;
340
(
6137
):
1243
6
.
59.
Kalueff
AV
,
Stewart
AM
,
Song
C
,
Berridge
KC
,
Graybiel
AM
,
Fentress
JC
.
Neurobiology of rodent self-grooming and its value for translational neuroscience
.
Nat Rev Neurosci
.
2016
;
17
(
1
):
45
59
.
60.
Kaminska
M
,
Perides
S
,
Lumsden
DE
,
Nakou
V
,
Selway
R
,
Ashkan
K
, et al
.
Complications of Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) for dystonia in children: the challenges and 10 year experience in a large paediatric cohort
.
Eur J Paediatr Neurol
.
2017
;
21
(
1
):
168
75
.
61.
Stapińska-Syniec
A
,
Sobstyl
M
,
Paskal
W
.
Skin-related complications following deep brain stimulation surgery: a single-center retrospective analysis of 525 patients who underwent DBS surgery
.
Clin Neurol Neurosurg
.
2023
;
225
:
107571
.
62.
Canaz
H
,
Karalok
I
,
Topcular
B
,
Agaoglu
M
,
Yapici
Z
,
Aydin
S
.
DBS in pediatric patients: institutional experience
.
Childs Nerv Syst
.
2018
;
34
(
9
):
1771
6
.