Objective

Front. Neurol.

Frontiers in Neurology

Front. Neurol.

1664-2295

Frontiers Media S.A.

10.3389/fneur.2025.1728999

Original Research

10-year clinical outcomes of subthalamic nucleus versus pallidal deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease: VA/NINDS CSP #468F

Ostrem

Jill L.

¹²^* Data curation Investigation Supervision Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing Luo

Ping

³ Formal analysis Methodology Writing – review & editing Weaver

Frances M.

³ Methodology Project administration Supervision Writing – review & editing Follett

Kenneth

⁴ Investigation Supervision Writing – review & editing Rothlind

Johannes

² Investigation Methodology Supervision Writing – review & editing Galifianakis

Nicholas B.

¹² Investigation Writing – review & editing Lai

Eugene C.

⁵ Investigation Writing – review & editing Bronstein

Jeff

⁶⁷ Investigation Writing – review & editing Duda

John

⁸ Investigation Writing – review & editing Holloway

Kathryn

⁹¹⁰ Investigation Writing – review & editing Sarwar

Aliya

¹¹¹² Investigation Writing – review & editing Brodsky

Matthew

¹³ Investigation Writing – review & editing Chung

Kathryn

¹⁴ Investigation Writing – review & editing Spindler

Meredith

¹⁵ Investigation Writing – review & editing Reda

Domenic

³ Conceptualization Methodology Project administration Supervision Writing – review & editing Snodgrass

Amanda

¹⁶ Investigation Methodology Writing – review & editing Moy

Claudia

¹⁷ Funding acquisition Project administration Writing – review & editing Huang

Grant

¹⁸ Funding acquisition Project administration Writing – review & editing Wei

Yongliang

³ Formal analysis Methodology Writing – review & editing Marks

William J.

Jr ¹⁹ Conceptualization Investigation Methodology Supervision Writing – review & editing the CSP 468F Study Group

1Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States 2San Francisco VA Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, United States 3Edward Hines Jr, VA Hospital, Hines, IL, United States 4Department of Neurosurgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, United States 5Department of Neurology, Houston Methodist Neurological Institute, Houston, TX, United States 6Department of Neurology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States 7West Los Angeles VA Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, United States 8Department of Neurology, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, United States 9McGuire VA Medical Center, Richmond, VA, United States 10Department of Neurosurgery, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, United States 11Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, TX, United States 12Department of Neurology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States 13Department of Neurology, Oregon Health Science University, Portland, OR, United States 14Portland VA Medical Center, Portland, OR, United States 15Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States 16VA Cooperative Studies Program Clinical Research Pharmacy Coordinating Center, Albuquerque, NM, United States 17The National Institutes of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Bethesda, MD, United States 18The Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program Central Office, Washington, DC, United States 19Department of Neurology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States

*Correspondence: Jill L. Ostrem, jill.ostrem@ucsf.edu

16 01 2026

2025

1728999

20 10 2025 11 12 2025 18 12 2025

2026

Ostrem, Luo, Weaver, Follett, Rothlind, Galifianakis, Lai, Bronstein, Duda, Holloway, Sarwar, Brodsky, Chung, Spindler, Reda, Snodgrass, Moy, Huang, Wei, Marks

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Objective

This study aimed to examine the very long-term effects of globus pallidus interna (GPi) or subthalamic nucleus (STN) deep brain stimulation (DBS) on Parkinson’s disease (PD) in a subset of patients enrolled in the CSP468 VA/NINDS prospective randomized trial.

Methods

The primary outcome was the change in off-medication/on-stimulation Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale III score (UPDRS III) from baseline over time between the two targets at 2, 7, and 10 years. Many secondary outcomes were also explored.

Results

A total of 156 patients were enrolled in this substudy, and data were available for 68 GPi/49 STN participants at 7 years and 49 GPi/28 STN participants at 10 years. There was no overall difference in the time trend between the two targets (p < 0.09). UPDRS III improvements from baseline in the GPi cohort at 2, 7, and 10 years were 39.9% (p < 0.001), 16.4%, (p < 0.001), and 22.3%, (p = 0.10), respectively, and in the STN cohort at 2, 7, and 10 years it was 34.9% (p < 0.001), 16.9%, (p < 0.001), and 32.8%, (p < 0.001), respectively. Tremor subscores showed the greatest reduction, followed by rigidity subscores. Initial improvements in bradykinesia and axial subscores were attenuated, and UPDRS I, II, and III on-medication/on-stimulation scores significantly declined. UPDRS IV scores and motor diaries showed significant long-term improvement, and medication reductions were seen regardless of the target. At 7 and 10 years, the PDQ-39 total score no longer showed improvement, and more severe cognitive impairment was seen in both targets.

Conclusion

DBS therapy has a significant beneficial effect on overall motor function, dyskinesia, and motor fluctuations over 10 years (regardless of target), though non-motor symptoms progressed. Bradykinesia, axial, and quality-of-life improvement were maintained at 2 years and then declined over time.

Clinical trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01022073, NCT00056563, NCT01076452.

deep brain stimulation globus pallidus long-term outcomes Parkinson’s disease subthalamic nucleus

The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. The study received financial and material support from grant CSP468F from the Cooperative Studies Program, Office of Research and Development, US Department of Veterans Affairs, and the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke.

section-at-acceptance

Movement Disorders

Introduction

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a highly effective therapy for Parkinson’s disease (PD) patients experiencing motor complications inadequately addressed by pharmacotherapy. Numerous randomized controlled trials have been published describing remarkable outcomes after 6–12 months of DBS therapy compared to best medical therapy (1–6). A number of well-conducted open-label trials within a given brain target have demonstrated robust motor outcomes after 3–5 years of DBS (7–13). Many studies also now document even longer-term outcomes (8–17 years), describing the experience with the subthalamic nucleus (STN) target (14–22) or, in far fewer studies, with the globus pallidus internus (GPi) target (23, 24). Most studies consistently reported overall motor benefit with a decline in axial symptoms and postural instability, improvement in levodopa-related complications, medication requirements less than pre-DBS baseline, more cognitive impairment, and reduced global benefit due to disease progression (14–16, 18–25).

The longstanding debate of the “best” stimulation target for PD treatment between the subthalamic nucleus (STN) and globus pallidus internus (GPi) started with early uncontrolled European studies, which suggested the durability of GPi DBS might be inferior to STN DBS (26–28). This included a 5-year follow-up study published in 2004 describing a progressive decline in benefit in 11 GPi DBS PD patients, 4 of whom went on to subsequently be treated with bilateral STN DBS and obtained further improvement (29). Since then, much has been learned about the two targets, with countless small, open-label, non-randomized studies of STN versus GPi DBS (30, 31) and several prospective, randomized, controlled studies and meta-analyses reporting generally mixed or similar overall motor benefit at short and intermediate time points after treatment (25, 31–37). Two of these randomized trials have published 3-year outcomes. Odekerken et al. reported a slight motor advantage in off-phase motor improvement with STN DBS, but a similar risk of cognitive, mood, and behavioral complications at 36 months for both targets (38). The original CSP 468 VA/NINDS trial showed no significant motor differences between the targets and no group differences in cognitive outcomes, except for a greater 3-year decline on the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale (MDRS) for STN than GPi patients (39). A published meta-analysis investigated the results of STN versus GPi DBS in randomized trials at varying lengths of follow-up time, concluding that the motor benefits achieved with GPi and STN DBS in PD were similar; STN DBS allowed for greater medication reduction, and GPi DBS favored mood outcomes (36).

There are no published studies from prospective, randomized trials that examine outcomes beyond 3 years comparing STN DBS to GPi DBS. Here, we present the extended long-term outcomes after DBS—out to 10 years in some patients—from the CSP 468 VA/NINDS cohort.

Materials and methods Participants

This multi-center, longitudinal follow-up study included PD participants enrolled in the CSP#468 VA/NINDS Cooperative trial treated with bilateral GPi or STN DBS. Among 299 participants randomized to the DBS target in CSP#468, 290 received DBS surgery between June 2002 and November 2006, 279 participants completed the 6-month visit evaluations, and 261 participants completed the 2-year visit evaluations (33).

The main study ended in 2008, and this long-term extension study started in 2010. All eligible participants who were enrolled in VA CSP#468 at VA Parkinson’s Disease Research Education and Clinical Centers (PADRECCs) and affiliated university sites who were still alive were re-screened for participation in this extension CSP#468F long-term follow-up study (Figure 1). Participants were excluded from enrollment into the follow-up study if they (1) had died, (2) had their DBS permanently explanted or turned off, (3) were lost to follow-up (unable to contact), (4) refused to participate, or (5) had previously withdrawn consent. As part of this process, a review of patient electronic medical records and Medicare databases was performed to capture serious medical events occurring since the CSP#468 primary study ended to help determine participants’ eligibility.

Figure 1

Study flow-chart. *Patients with UPDRS III off mediation/on stimulation (primary outcome).

Flowchart depicting the enrollment of 299 patients with Parkinson's disease in CSP468 into DBS surgical targets: GPi or STN. GPi had 152 patients, with 66 excluded for reasons like death or withdrawal. STN had 147 patients, with 77 excluded for similar reasons. Ultimately, 156 patients enrolled in long-term follow-up: 86 in GPi and 70 in STN, with follow-up periods at two, seven, and ten years.

All site institutional review boards approved the study, and participants provided written informed consent [clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: NCT00056563 (2), NCT01076452 (33), and NCT01022073].

Clinical assessments

Participants were evaluated locally in person every 12 months (± 30 days) using a standardized protocol, resulting in follow-up out to 10 years from the original implant in some patients. The primary outcome measure was the change in the off-medication/on-stimulation Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) (40) motor score (part III) at 2, 7, and 10 years of treatment, compared to baseline, between the two targets. Multiple secondary outcome measures included off-medication/on-stimulation UPDRS III subscores (tremor, rigidity, bradykinesia, and axial), on-medication/on-stimulation UPDRS-III motor score, and UPDRS I, II, and IV with Hoehn and Yahr staging and Schwab and England (S&E) scoring (41); 24-h 1-day motor diary (completed within the week prior to visit) that characterized time into “on time without troublesome dyskinesia,” “on time with troublesome dyskinesia,” “off time,” and “asleep”, the PDQ-39 (42), and the Beck Depression Inventory (43). A subset of the measures included in the baseline neuropsychological assessment battery was administered annually to participants who earned raw scores of 100/144 or higher on the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale (MDRS) (44) (data not presented here). Study nurses and coordinators were pre-trained by study neuropsychologists to assist in the completion of these measures for this longitudinal follow-up. Other data collected included documentation of DBS stimulation parameters and device diagnostics; device issues; medication use defined as daily levodopa equivalent dose; and serious adverse events (SAEs) related to the DBS device, DBS surgery, or PD progression. If the participant could not be evaluated in person every 12 months due to health status and/or travel burden, then a phone visit collected demographic and medical events, UPDRS I, UPDRS II, UPDRS IV, motor diary, PDQ-39, PD medications, and stimulation parameters.

Statistical analysis

All analyses were based on the intent-to-treat principle by maintaining the randomized group assignments from the original study. T-tests or Fisher’s exact tests were used for comparisons of baseline characteristics between treatment groups. Medication was converted to levodopa equivalents for analysis (33). Mixed-effects analyses were conducted for repeated measurements over time, treating the missing data as missing at random. Time intervals were treated as categorical variables in analyzing the changes over time or between any pair of two time points. Hypothesis tests with orthogonal polynomial contrasts were applied to the time trend effect and its interaction with the treatment group. Analyses were performed using SAS software (version 9.4). All statistical tests were two-sided, and a p-value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant with no formal correction for multiple analyses.

Results Patient characteristics

A total of 156 patients (86 GPi/ 70 STN) were enrolled from the original study into this long-term follow-up study; this included 68 GPi and 49 STN participants who completed visits at 7 years, and 49 GPi and 28 STN participants who completed study visits at 10 years. Some patients did not complete the full UPDRS III off-medication testing at 7 and 10 years, which reduced the number of patients contributing to the primary outcome (7 years: 58 GPi and 40 STN; 10 years: 36 GPi and 19 STN participants) (Figure 1). An analysis comparing secondary outcome measures for those who completed and did not complete the primary outcome suggested that overall the subgroup of patients not completing the UPDRS III off-medication testing was likely more advanced. At year 10, the UPDRS II activities of daily living score and PDQ mobility, ADL, emotional wellbeing, and communication subscores (but not other secondary measures) were all statistically worse (p < 0.05) in this subgroup.

Baseline (pre-DBS) characteristics for patients enrolled in this follow-up study are summarized in Table 1, and no significant differences were noted between STN and GPi cohorts. Given the high dropout rate over time, we also compared baseline characteristics for the subgroups of patients completing year 7 and 10 visits and did not find any differences between the 2 target groups. However, by comparing the 156 patients who entered this sub-study to the 299 who enrolled in the original study, we found the long-term participants were generally “healthier” than the original trial population. Overall, at baseline, those with extended follow-up were younger (p ≤ 0.001) had lower H&Y off-medication scores (p ≤ 0.05), and had higher MDRS scores (p ≤ 0.01). Patients enrolled in the long-term follow-up also had higher S&E off-med scores (p ≤ 0.001), lower UPDRS I (p ≤ 0.001), II (p ≤ 0.001), and III scores (p ≤ 0.05), lower PDQ-39 single index scores (p ≤ 0.001), and higher processing speed index scores (p ≤ 0.01) as measured at 2-year follow-up.

Table 1

Baseline pre-DBS characteristics for CSP 468F enrolled patients.

Results are presented in N (%) or mean (SD)	GPi (N = 86)	STN (N = 70)	P-value
Age (years)	59.5 (8.4)	58.6 (7.9)	0.51
Age (≥ 70 years)	11 (12.8%)	7 (10.0%)	0.62
Gender—male	75 (87.2%)	58 (82.9%)	0.50
Race—white	84 (97.7%)	66 (94.3%)	0.26
Married	65 (75.6%)	49 (70.0%)	0.50
Living with family	75 (87.2%)	57 (81.4%)	0.39
Education (years)	14.3 (3.2)	15.3 (3.2)	0.07
Years since PD diagnosis	11.4 (4.7)	11.4 (5.2)	0.96
Years on PD Medications	11.0 (4.7)	10.6 (4.7)	0.57
Levodopa equivalent PD medication (mg)	1,330 (585.9)	1,283 (516.9)	0.59
UPDRS I (mentation, behavior, and mood)^a	2.5 (2.0)	2.6 (2.1)	0.70
UPDRS II (activities of daily living)^a	18.2 (5.3)	18.9 (6.4)	0.44
UPDRS III (motor function off-medication)^a	43.2 (12.1)	43.2 (13.9)	0.99
UPDRS III (motor function on-medication)^a	22.3 (11.2)	21.1 (9.6)	0.51
UPDRS IV (complication of therapy)^a	8.6 (2.8)	9.2 (3.2)	0.21
Hoehn and Yahr scale (off medication)	3.2 (0.9)	3.3 (0.8)	0.43
Schwab and England scale (off medication)	52.0 (21.4)	52.9 (18.4)	0.79
Motor function without dyskinesia hours per day	6.6 (2.7)	7.0 (2.9)	0.36
Motor function with troublesome dyskinesia	4.3 (3.5)	4.3 (3.3)	0.92
PDQ-39 single index (range 0–100)^a	42.4 (14.4)	47.3 (12.5)	0.03
PDQ-39 mobility (range 0–100)^a	54.1 (23.3)	59.4 (19.5)	0.13
PDQ-39 ADL (range 0–100)^a	54.2 (17.5)	55.3 (18.3)	0.70
PDQ-39 emotional wellbeing (range 0–100)^a	37.9 (19.8)	42.9 (17.7)	0.10
PDQ-39 stigma (range 0–100)^a	41.0 (24.7)	44.2 (26.0)	0.44
PDQ-39 social support (range 0–100)^a	23.8 (17.3)	30.7 (19.0)	0.02
PDQ-39 cognition (range 0–100)^a	38.5 (16.6)	43.1 (15.8)	0.08
PDQ-39 communication (range 0–100)^a	41.2 (19.8)	49.4 (19.5)	0.01
PDQ-39 bodily discomfort (range 0–100)^a	47.8 (21.8)	51.8 (21.0)	0.26
Beck Depression Inventory (range 0–63)^a	10.7 (8.6)	10.4 (6.6)	0.87
Mattis dementia scale total (range 0–144)^b	138.2 (5.0)	138.2 (4.8)	0.96

PD, Parkinson’s disease; UPDRS, Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating; PDQ-39, Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire-39 Score.

Higher score indicates worse functioning.

Higher score indicates better functioning.

Clinical outcomes

The UPDRS III off-medication/on-stimulation scores reflected improvement in motor function compared to baseline at 2, 7, and 10 years for GPi (43.2 to 25.8, p < 0.001; 35.4, p < 0.001; and 34.0, p = 0.10) and STN (43.2 to 27.7, p < 0.001; 34.4, p < 0.001; and 28.3, p < 0.001), respectively (Figure 2). There was no overall difference in time trend over time between the two targets (p < 0.09). The tremor subscores showed the greatest reduction over time (p < 0.001), followed by rigidity subscores (p ≤ 0.002), regardless of target. There was a significant difference between GPi and STN for rigidity (favoring STN), but only at 10 years (p < 0.01). Bradykinesia and axial subscores showed improvement at 2 years (p < 0.01), but then effectiveness is attenuated over time for both targets.

Figure 2

Primary outcome (UPDRS part III off medication/on stimulation) over time. The observed data are described as mean (SD) separately by GPi and STN groups at each time point for primary outcome UPDRS III (total score and 4 subscales). The mean of changes from baseline to later time points are reported together with the 95% confidence interval and illustrated as dot and error bars in the plot. The p-values were obtained for either the changes from baseline within each group or the between-group comparisons at each time point. The overall linear time trends between two groups are compared and the p-value are reported in brackets above those between-group p-values. Subscores calculated from summation of items as follows: Tremor score items 20 and 21; Rigidity score corresponding to the sum of item 22; Bradykinesia score corresponding to the sum of item 23, 24, 25, and 26; Axial score used UPDRS-III scores corresponding to the sum items 27, 28, 29, and 30.

Forest plot comparing the progression of Parkinson's disease symptoms (UPDRS-III, Tremor, Rigidity, Bradykinesia, Axial) over 2, 7, and 10 years between GPi and STN groups. It shows mean change with confidence intervals, p-values, and significance levels, indicating regression or progression from baseline.

Changes in UPDRS I, II, III on meds, and IV scores are shown in Figure 3 and reflect a similar pattern at 2-year post-surgery as previously reported in the original study (33). Both targets showed no improvement in UPDRS I from baseline at 2 years and then a significant worsening in UPDRS I at 7 and 10 years (p < 0.001). At 2 years, both targets showed significant improvements in UPDRS II and UPDRS III on medication scores (p < 0.001), but at years 7 and 10, a worsening from baseline was seen (p < 0.04 and p < 0.001, respectively). On average, a calculated “gait score” (summation of UPDRS II on medication item 13 (falling unrelated to freezing), item 14 (freezing when walking), and item 15 (walking) (45) showed improvement in both targets at 2 years (GPi 4.0 to 3.3, p ≤ 0.003 and STN 4.6 to 3.4, p < 0.001) but worsened at year 7 (GPi 5.2, p < 0.001 and STN 4.9, p = 0.18) and year 10 (GPi 5.6, p < 0.001 and STN 4.9, p = 0.26) with fewer changes seen with the STN target. The UPDRS IV improvement was not different between targets and continued to be significantly improved at 2, 7, and 10 years (p < 0.001).

Figure 3

UPDRS secondary outcomes (UPDRS I, II, III on medication, and IV) over time. The observed data are described as mean (SD) separately by GPi and STN groups at each time point for UPDRS on-medication and on-stimulation outcomes (part I, II, III, and IV). The mean of changes from baseline to later time points are reported together with the 95% confidence interval and illustrated as dot and error bars in the plot. The p-values were obtained for either the changes from baseline within each group or the between-group comparisons at each time point. The overall linear time trends between two groups were compared and p-value are reported in brackets above those between-group p-values.

Forest plot showing changes from baseline in UPDRS scores across baseline, two-year, seven-year, and ten-year follow-ups for GPI and STN. Each section details mean scores, standard deviation, mean changes with confidence intervals, and p-values for within-group and between-group comparisons. Horizontal lines with points indicate progression or regression.

Table 2 highlights the motor diary, PDQ-39, and Beck Depression Inventory data. Remarkable sustained improvements were seen in on-time without troublesome dyskinesia, reduced time with troublesome dyskinesia, and reduced off-time regardless of target at 2, 7, and 10 years (p < 0.001). The PDQ-39 single index score found significant improvement in PD quality of life at 2 years, regardless of target (p < 0.001), but a return to near baseline scores at 7 and 10 years. There were no significant differences between targets on PDQ-39 subscores, and improvements observed at 2-year post-surgery for these subscores were attenuated during the long-term follow-up. Repeated administration of the Beck Depression Inventory yielded comparable results between targets regarding self-ratings of mood.

Table 2

Motor diary, PDQ-39, Beck Depression Inventory, and medication outcomes.

Secondary outcomes	GPi-DBS^a				STN-DBS^a
Secondary outcomes	Baseline (N = 86)	2-year (N = 85)	7-year (N = 68)	10-year (N = 49)	Baseline (N = 70)	2-year (N = 70)	7-year (N = 49)	10-year (N = 28)
Motor function diaries
Good motor function/on time without troublesome dyskinesia (hours/day)	6.6 ± 2.7	12.3 ± 4.0**	10.7 ± 3.9**	10.5 ± 3.6**	7.0 ± 2.9**	12.3 ± 4.0**	11.4 ± 4.0**	11.1 ± 4.4**
On time with troublesome dyskinesia (hours/day)	4.3 ± 3.5	1.3 ± 2.7**	1.2 ± 2.5**	1.1 ± 2.1**	4.3 ± 3.3**	1.0 ± 2.0**	0.7 ± 1.3**	1.6 ± 2.8**
Poor motor function/off time (hours/day)	5.8 ± 2.5	2.4 ± 2.8**	3.2 ± 3.8**	3.3 ± 3.0 **	5.9 ± 3.1**	2.7 ± 4.0**	2.5 ± 2.6**	2.6 ± 3.0**
Asleep (hours/day)	7.2 ± 1.9	8.0 ± 1.9	8.3 ± 2.1	8.9 ± 1.9	6.8 ± 1.9	7.9 ± 1.9	8.9 ± 2.3	7.8 ± 2.6
Parkinson’s disease questionnaire-39 (range 0–100)^c
Single index	42.4 ± 14.4	34.7 ± 14.9**	42.0 ± 14.0	47.3 ± 15.2*	47.3 ± 12.5	37.7 ± 14.4**	44.9 ± 15.1	47.0 ± 17.4
Mobility	54.1 ± 23.3	39.1 ± 23.9**	59.7 ± 26.8	65.6 ± 26.1**	59.4 ± 19.5	44.1 ± 22.0**	61.2 ± 27.3	66.5 ± 30.3
Activities of daily living	54.2 ± 17.5	37.2 ± 18.7**	52.1 ± 23.1	56.2 ± 25.2	55.3 ± 18.3	37.7 ± 20.6**	50.3 ± 27.7	53.3 ± 26.7
Emotional role function	37.9 ± 19.8	32.7 ± 20.4*	38.8 ± 20.3	43.4 ± 18.2	42.9 ± 17.7	35.0 ± 19.4**	44.1 ± 22.6	39.9 ± 26.2
Stigma	41.0 ± 24.7	26.9 ± 21.1**	28.8 ± 23.6**	26.2 ± 22.1**	44.2 ± 26.0	28.2 ± 24.9**	30.3 ± 28.0**	30.6 ± 27.3**
Social support	23.8 ± 17.3	24.1 ± 18.4	21.5 ± 17.7	25.9 ± 18.2	30.7 ± 19.0	29.3 ± 19.5	26.9 ± 23.8	31.3 ± 27.5
Cognition	38.5 ± 16.6	36.3 ± 15.8	44.5 ± 18.3	50.9 ± 20.4*	43.1 ± 15.8	40.6 ± 17.9	45.4 ± 21.5	45.1 ± 18.2
Communication	41.2 ± 19.8	46.2 ± 19.1*	56.2 ± 19.6 **	63.4 ± 17.7**	49.4 ± 19.5	51.1 ± 23.7	59.9 ± 22.9**	66.4 ± 22.5**
Body discomfort	47.8 ± 21.8	37.7 ± 19.9**	43.8 ± 21.2	43.1 ± 22.4*	51.8 ± 21.0	41.9 ± 23.3**	45.1 ± 22.5*	37.8 ± 20.7**
Hoehn and Yahr staging (range 0–5)^c, Schwab and England scoring (range 0–100)^b, and Beck Depression Inventory (range 0–63)^c
Hoehn and Yahr (off medication)	3.1 ± 0.9	2.7 ± 0.9**	3.3 ± 1.0	3.3 ± 1.1	3.3 ± 0.8	2.8 ± 0.8**	3.4 ± 1.0	3.7 ± 1.0
Hoehn and Yahr (on medication)	2.3 ± 0.7	2.2 ± 0.7	2.9 ± 1.1**	3.1 ± 1.2**	2.4 ± 0.4	2.4 ± 0.6	3.1 ± 1.0**	3.3 ± 1.1**
Schwab and England scoring (off medication)	52.0 ± 21.4	72.9 ± 19.3**	53.1 ± 21.5	54.5 ± 23.9	52.9 ± 18.5	70.4 ± 18.6**	51.8 ± 23.9	50.7 ± 26.5
Schwab and England scoring (on medication)	84.1 ± 10.6	87.3 ± 11.7*	70.3 ± 21.3**	63.4 ± 22.8**	82.9 ± 12.1	86.4 ± 10.8*	64.5 ± 24.3**	66.1 ± 27.3**
Beck Depression Inventory	10.7 ± 8.6	9.7 ± 7.4	11.5 ± 10.5	7.5 ± 7.8	10.4 ± 6.6	11.2 ± 8.0	10.4 ± 8.8	8.9 ± 8.8
Levodopa equivalent PD medication
Levodopa equivalent PD medication (mg)	1,330 ± 586	1,058 ± 574**	1,099 ± 660**	978 ± 529**	1,283 ± 517	829 ± 474**	853 ± 480**	778 ± 490**

* Statistically significant changes from baseline to each time point within each group (p < 0.05).

** Highly statistically significant changes from baseline to each time point within each group (p < 0.001).

Not statistically significant between groups at each time point or for the overall linear trend across time.

Higher score indicates better functioning.

Higher score indicates worse functioning.

Both targets allowed significant medication reductions over time from baseline. GPi patients had a reduction in LEDD from 1,330 (±586) at baseline to 1,058 (±574, p < 0.001) at 2 years, 1,099 (±660, p < 0.001) at 7 years, and 978 (±529, p < 0.001) at 10 years; STN patients went from 1,283 (±517) at baseline to 829 (±474, p < 0.001) at 2 years, 853 (±480, p < 0.001) at 7 years, and 778 (±490, p < 0.001) at 10 years. There was no target difference over time for the linear trends using the mixed effect model (p = 0.70), while there were some marginally significant differences between the two target groups compared to baseline at 2 years (p = 0.04) and at 7 years (p = 0.05), with more reduction in LEDD in the STN group.

Cognitive outcomes

A detailed analysis of the results of cognitive assessments is beyond the scope of this report; however, the results from the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale (DRS) clearly depict further progression of cognitive impairment in PD in the long-term follow-up after DBS, regardless of target. Twenty-seven of the 117 study participants still participating at 7 years had an MDRS score below 100 (out of a total possible score of 144) [16/68 in the GPi group (23%) and 11/49 in the STN group (22%)]. At 10-year follow-up, 30 of the remaining 77 study participants scored in that range [20/49 in the GPi group (40%) and 10/28 in the STN group (35%)], with no difference in rate of low scores by surgical target.

DBS stimulation parameters

At 10 years, the average stimulation parameters were 3.0 (±1.0) V, 83.7 (±29.5) μs, 154.5 (±26.3) Hz for patients with STN targets and 3.9 (±1.2) V, 99.5 (±38.7) μs, 153.7 (±24.9) Hz with GPi; these were similar to stimulation settings seen at 2 years for both targets.

Adverse events

For the period of this long-term follow-up study, we reported only non-MedDRA coded major medical events captured on case report forms, which included information on device-related events, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, or other serious medical events that the investigator considered to be important (Table 3) between year 2 and year 10 visits. As expected, nearly all patients (N = 153) in the study required implantable pulse generator replacements at some point due to the neurostimulator batteries reaching the end of life. There were 12 events of device malfunction and 10 DBS device-related infections. Hospitalizations were common during this period, with 29% of these visits being related to DBS. There were 414 visits from 114 patients to the emergency room (64 with GPi and 50 with STN), but only 17 visits were related to DBS. Fall injuries were also common, with 151 events reported from 74 patients (44 for GPi and 30 for STN), with 1 reported due to DBS.

Table 3

Adverse events.

Event type	GPi (N = 86)		STN (N = 70)		Total (N = 156)
Event type	Events	Unique patients	Events	unique patients	Events	Unique patients
DBS IPG explant (due to end of life)	179	84	138	69	317	153
DBS IPG replacement	177	84	140	69	317	153
DBS malfunction	8	8	4	4	12	12
DBS infection	6	5	4	4	10	9
DBS other issue	3	3	1	1	4	4
Hospitalization	198	60	114	57	244	117
Due to DBS	35	17	36	20	71	37
ER room visits	246	64	168	50	414	114
Due to DBS	10	9	7	6	17	15
Fall injury	98	44	53	30	151	74
Due to DBS	1	1	0	0	1	1
Other serious medical issue	105	45	66	29	171	74

Discussion

This is the longest follow-up study to date of an initially randomized cohort describing DBS outcomes comparing the two targets. DBS therapy has a significant and stable effect on some aspects of motor function over 10 years, regardless of the target. Both STN and GPi targeted DBS provided significant improvement in tremor and rigidity subscores in the off-medication state, but motor assessments in the on-medication/on-stimulation condition continued to show a decline. This is consistent with previous open-label very long-term trials of both STN and GPi DBS (14–16, 18–21, 23, 24). Notably, DBS of both targets reduced motor fluctuations and dyskinesia out to 10 years. Over the very long term, both targets also allowed for a significant reduction in dopaminergic medication use, with no target differences, despite shorter-term studies often reporting a greater reduction possible with STN DBS. It is possible that with advancing disease, many patients may have decreased tolerance to dopaminergic therapy, limiting its use, but nevertheless, they have persistently improved motor function relative to baseline in the off-medication state and as measured by motor diaries.

Not all aspects of motor symptoms improve to the same extent at 7 and 10 years with DBS. Long-term studies of STN DBS have reported improvements in tremor and rigidity that persist longer than bradykinesia (22) and less benefit to axial PD symptoms, including speech, posture, gait, and postural instability (12, 14–20). Our study confirms these findings and also reports a similar decline with GPi DBS (23, 24, 46). Effective treatment of axial PD symptoms remains a critical unmet need.

Unfortunately, patients in our study (many of whom were relatively advanced in their disease at the time of enrollment) did not experience a halt in disease progression, nor did DBS therapy substantially influence many non-motor domains in the very long term. Patients continued to experience deterioration and greater disability. Again, we did not see differences between the two targets, as both cohorts were significantly worse on indicators of quality of life at 7 and 10 years. Detailed neuropsychological testing data were limited in the long term but based on the limited analysis of MDRS outcomes and surrogate markers of cognitive decline that were available (UPDRS I and items on the PDQ-39), we saw a similar decline in cognition across targets.

Adverse events for the two targets were also similar. Between years 2 and 10, there were only nine DBS infections reported across all subjects, and DBS device malfunctions were also generally rare.

This long-term study has several limitations. Despite patients being recruited from a randomized controlled trial initially, this study re-enrolled only a subset, and therefore, it no longer serves as a randomized, controlled study. However, the two cohorts did demonstrate similar baseline characteristics. We also had a high dropout rate, which is not unexpected for such a long trial and in a progressive disease, but still resulted in a relatively small sample size at 10 years. Furthermore, compared to the originally enrolled whole study population, the patients we enrolled and retained in the extension study may have experienced a relatively greater benefit from DBS and were therefore able to travel and participate in the study. This is supported by a greater reduction in this study at 2 years in the motor UPDRS III scores compared to the primary study outcomes (33). Nevertheless, we did not see major differences in long-term outcomes between the two targets.

In conclusion, this longest follow-up study describing DBS outcomes in Parkinson’s disease by comparing the STN and GPi targets from an initial randomized trial contributes to the understanding of the natural history of PD treated with DBS in the very long term. Our findings confirm that DBS therapy, regardless of target, has a significant positive effect on some motor functions (notably tremor, rigidity, dyskinesia, and motor fluctuations) and has less of an impact on others (bradykinesia, axial signs) over 10 years. The initial advantage of STN over GPi in medication reduction was not seen in the long term. These study findings can help inform patients living with DBS or considering DBS therapy about what they can expect in the later stages of the disease, up to 10 years. DBS therapy changes the PD phenotype in the long term, given its powerful effect on some motor symptoms (47). This is remarkable given that PD is a progressive neurodegenerative disease. Some have suggested that current DBS therapy may influence disease progression; however, this remains controversial and unproven so far (48). The field of DBS since this study was conducted has experienced many technological advancements, including the introduction of multiple independent current controls, directional electrodes, a greater stimulation parameter space, image-guided programming, and adaptive DBS, all of which may lead to reduced side effects and better long-term outcomes (49). However, the continued deterioration of some motor and many non-motor domains and related progressive disability highlights the great need for other novel PD interventions and therapeutics for these aspects of PD.

Data availability statement

Raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation pending approval of data use agreement.

Ethics statement

All site institutional review boards approved the study, and participants provided written informed consent (clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: NCT00056563, NCT01076452, and NCT01022073). The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

JO: Data curation, Investigation, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. PL: Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – review & editing. FW: Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. KF: Investigation, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. JR: Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. NG: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. EL: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. JB: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. JD: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. KH: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. AlS: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. MB: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. KC: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. MS: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. DR: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. AmS: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing. CM: Funding acquisition, Project administration, Writing – review & editing. GH: Funding acquisition, Project administration, Writing – review & editing. YW: Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – review & editing. WM: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.

Group member of CSP 468F Study Group

Hines VA Cooperative Studies Program Coordinating Center: Tammy Barnett, MA; Mary Biondic, BA; Kimberly Carlson, MS; Barbara Chris; Erin Kathleen Dursa, PhD; Joyce Gilroy; Kwan Hur, PhD; Michael J. Klein, BA; Ping Luo, PhD; Jan Motyka, BS; Unnati Patel, MPH; Domenic Reda, PhD; Nadia Sakla, MD; Charles Spanbauer, MS; Kelly Tir, BA; Yongliang Wei, MS. Pharmacy Coordinating Center: Sheila J. Campbell, BSBA, MBA; Crystal Harris, PharmD; Amanda Snodgrass, PharmD; Julie Thornton, BS. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke: Claudia Moy, PhD. Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program Central Office, VA Office of Research and Development: Grant D. Huang, MPH, PhD; Timothy O’Leary, MD, PhD. Executive Committee: Kenneth A. Follett, MD, PhD; Crystal Harris, PharmD; Michael J. Klein, BA; Elaine Lanier-Bohan, RN, MS; Ping Luo, PhD; William J. Marks Jr., MD; Claudia Moy, PhD; Unnati Patel, MPH; Domenic Reda, PhD; Johannes C. Rothlind, PhD; Amanda Snodgrass, PharmD; Matthew Stern, MD; Frances M. Weaver, PhD. Data Safety Monitoring Board: Roy Bakay, MD (Chairman); Rick Chappell, PhD; Robert Hart, MD; George McCabe, PhD; Margaret Schenkman, PhD. Study Monitors: Carol Fye, RPh, MS, CCRP; Sharon Matzek, MPH, CCRA. Site Investigators: Matthew Brodsky, MD; Jeff Bronstein, MD, PhD; Kathryn Chung, MD; John Duda, MD; Emad Farag, MD; Nicholas B. Galifianakis, MD, MPH; Graham Glass, MD; Kathryn Holloway, MD; Stacy Horn, DO; Jyh-Gong Hou, MD; Eugene C. Lai, MD, PhD; Jill Ostrem, MD; Aliya I. Sarwar, MD; Meredith Spindler, MD; Indu Subramanian, MD; Jayne R. Wilkinson, MD. Site Coordinators: Farah Atassi, MD, MPH; Shannon Donovan, MPAS, PA-C; Linda Fincher, RN, BSN; Susan Heath, RN, MS; Miriam Hirsch, MS, RN; Virginia Janovsky, RN, MN, MS; Elaine Lanier, RN, MS; Mary Lloyd, RN; Susan O’Connor, RN; Suzanne Reichwein; Norma I. Renteria, LPN; Holley Stone, RN; Robin Taylor, MSN, FNP; Monica Volz, RN, MS; Heidi Watson, BSN. Psychologists: Randall Coeshott, PhD; Johannes C. Rothlind, PhD.

Conflict of interest

JO has received grant support from Medtronic and Boston Scientific. KH serves as a consultant for Medtronic and Abbott, has received grant support from Medtronic, and is an investigator for Abbott- and Medtronic-funded trials. MB has received grant support from Boston Scientific and serves as a safety monitor for a Medtronic clinical trial. MS serves as a consultant for Medtronic and Boston Scientific.

The remaining author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Author disclaimer

The contents do not represent the views of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States Government.

References 1.

Deuschl

Schade-Brittinger

Krack

Volkmann

Schafer

Botzel

. A randomized trial of deep-brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease. N Engl J Med. (2006) 355:896–908. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa060281, 16943402

Weaver

Follett

Stern

Hur

Harris

Marks

Jr . Bilateral deep brain stimulation vs best medical therapy for patients with advanced Parkinson disease: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. (2009) 301:63–73. doi: 10.1001/jama.2008.929

Williams

Gill

Varma

Jenkinson

Quinn

Mitchell

. 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) 9:581–91. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(10)70093-4, 20434403

Okun

Gallo

Mandybur

Jagid

Foote

Revilla

. Subthalamic deep brain stimulation with a constant-current device in Parkinson's disease: an open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. (2012) 11:140–9. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(11)70308-8

Schuepbach

Rau

Knudsen

Volkmann

Krack

Timmermann

. Neurostimulation for Parkinson's disease with early motor complications. N Engl J Med. (2013) 368:610–22. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1205158, 23406026

Vitek

Jain

Chen

Troster

Schrock

House

. Subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation with a multiple independent constant current-controlled device in Parkinson's disease (INTREPID): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, sham-controlled study. Lancet Neurol. (2020) 19:491–501. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30108-3, 32470421

Krack

Batir

Van Blercom

Chabardes

Fraix

Ardouin

. Five-year follow-up of bilateral stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus in advanced Parkinson's disease. N Engl J Med. (2003) 349:1925–34. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa035275, 14614167

Schupbach

Chastan

Welter

Houeto

Mesnage

Bonnet

. Stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus in Parkinson's disease: a 5 year follow up. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. (2005) 76:1640–4. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.2005.063206, 16291886

Piboolnurak

Lang

Lozano

Miyasaki

Saint-Cyr

Poon

. Levodopa response in long-term bilateral subthalamic stimulation for Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord. (2007) 22:990–7. doi: 10.1002/mds.21482

10.

Wider

Pollo

Bloch

Burkhard

Vingerhoets

. Long-term outcome of 50 consecutive Parkinson's disease patients treated with subthalamic deep brain stimulation. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. (2008) 14:114–9. doi: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2007.06.012, 17822940

11.

Romito

Contarino

Vanacore

Bentivoglio

Scerrati

Albanese

. Replacement of dopaminergic medication with subthalamic nucleus stimulation in Parkinson's disease: long-term observation. Mov Disord. (2009) 24:557–63. doi: 10.1002/mds.22390, 19097175

12.

Gervais-Bernard

Xie-Brustolin

Mertens

Polo

Klinger

Adamec

. Bilateral subthalamic nucleus stimulation in advanced Parkinson’s disease: five year follow-up. J Neurol. (2009) 256:225–33. doi: 10.1007/s00415-009-0076-2, 19242649

13.

Simonin

Tir

Devos

Kreisler

Dujardin

Salleron

. Reduced levodopa-induced complications after 5 years of subthalamic stimulation in Parkinson’s disease: a second honeymoon. J Neurol. (2009) 256:1736–41. doi: 10.1007/s00415-009-5195-2, 19536584

14.

Fasano

Romito

Daniele

Piano

Zinno

Bentivoglio

. Motor and cognitive outcome in patients with Parkinson's disease 8 years after subthalamic implants. Brain. (2010) 133:2664–76. doi: 10.1093/brain/awq221, 20802207

15.

Castrioto

Lozano

Poon

Lang

Fallis

Moro

. Ten-year outcome of subthalamic stimulation in Parkinson disease: a blinded evaluation. Arch Neurol. (2011) 68:1550–6. doi: 10.1001/archneurol.2011.182, 21825213

16.

Zibetti

Merola

Rizzi

Ricchi

Angrisano

Azzaro

. Beyond nine years of continuous subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation in Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord. (2011) 26:2327–34. doi: 10.1002/mds.23903, 22012750

17.

Rizzone

Fasano

Daniele

Zibetti

Merola

Rizzi

. Long-term outcome of subthalamic nucleus DBS in Parkinson's disease: from the advanced phase towards the late stage of the disease? Parkinsonism Relat Disord. (2014) 20:376–81. doi: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2014.01.012, 24508574

18.

Lau

Meier

Serra

Czernecki

Schuepbach

Navarro

. Axial symptoms predict mortality in patients with Parkinson disease and subthalamic stimulation. Neurology. (2019) 92:e2559–70. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000007562, 31043471

19.

Cavallieri

Fraix

Bove

Mulas

Tondelli

Castrioto

. Predictors of long-term outcome of subthalamic stimulation in Parkinson disease. Ann Neurol. (2021) 89:587–97. doi: 10.1002/ana.25994, 33349939

20.

Bove

Mulas

Cavallieri

Castrioto

Chabardes

Meoni

. Long-term outcomes (15 years) after subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation in patients with Parkinson disease. Neurology. (2021) 97:e254–62. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000012246, 34078713

21.

Zampogna

Suppa

Bove

Cavallieri

Castrioto

Meoni

. Disentangling bradykinesia and rigidity in Parkinson's disease: evidence from short- and long-term subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation. Ann Neurol. (2024) 96:234–46. doi: 10.1002/ana.26961, 38721781

22.

Starr

Shivacharan

Goldberg

Troster

House

Giroux

. Five-year outcomes from deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus for Parkinson disease. JAMA Neurol. (2025) 82:1181. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2025.3373, 40952750

23.

Lachenmayer

Bettschen

Bernasconi

Petermann

Debove

Muellner

. Stimulation of the globus pallidus internus in the treatment of Parkinson's disease: long-term results of a monocentric cohort. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. (2019) 64:118–23. doi: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2019.03.009, 30935828

24.

Tsuboi

Lemos Melo Lobo Jofili Lopes

Moore

Patel

Legacy

Ratajska

. Long-term clinical outcomes of bilateral GPi deep brain stimulation in advanced Parkinson's disease: 5 years and beyond. J Neurosurg. (2020):1–10. doi: 10.3171/2020.6.JNS20617

25.

Racki

Hero

Rozmaric

Papic

Raguz

Chudy

. Cognitive impact of deep brain stimulation in Parkinson's disease patients: a systematic review. Front Hum Neurosci. (2022) 16:867055. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2022.867055, 35634211

26.

Ghika

Villemure

Fankhauser

Favre

Assal

Ghika-Schmid

. Efficiency and safety of bilateral contemporaneous pallidal stimulation (deep brain stimulation) in levodopa-responsive patients with Parkinson's disease with severe motor fluctuations: a 2-year follow-up review. J Neurosurg. (1998) 89:713–8. doi: 10.3171/jns.1998.89.5.0713, 9817406

27.

Barcia-Salorio

Roldan

Talamantes

Pascual-Leone

. Electrical inhibition of basal ganglia nuclei in Parkinson's disease: long-term results. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. (1999) 72:202–7. doi: 10.1159/000029727, 10853079

28.

Houeto

Bejjani

Damier

Staedler

Bonnet

Pidoux

. Failure of long-term pallidal stimulation corrected by subthalamic stimulation in PD. Neurology. (2000) 55:728–30. doi: 10.1212/WNL.55.5.728, 10980748

29.

Volkmann

Allert

Voges

Sturm

Schnitzler

Freund

. Long-term results of bilateral pallidal stimulation in Parkinson's disease. Ann Neurol. (2004) 55:871–5. doi: 10.1002/ana.20091, 15174022

30.

Peppe

Pierantozzi

Bassi

Altibrandi

Brusa

Stefani

. Stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus compared with the globus pallidus internus in patients with Parkinson disease. J Neurosurg. (2004) 101:195–200. doi: 10.3171/jns.2004.101.2.0195, 15309908

31.

Anderson

Burchiel

Hogarth

Favre

Hammerstad

. Pallidal vs subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation in Parkinson disease. Arch Neurol. (2005) 62:554–60. doi: 10.1001/archneur.62.4.554, 15824252

32.

Okun

Fernandez

Kirsch-Darrow

Bowers

Bova

. Cognition and mood in Parkinson's disease in subthalamic nucleus versus globus pallidus interna deep brain stimulation: the COMPARE trial. Ann Neurol. (2009) 65:586–95. doi: 10.1002/ana.21596, 19288469

33.

Follett

Weaver

Stern

Hur

Harris

Luo

. Pallidal versus subthalamic deep-brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease. N Engl J Med. (2010) 362:2077–91. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0907083, 20519680

34.

Moro

Lozano

Pollak

Agid

Rehncrona

Volkmann

. Long-term results of a multicenter study on subthalamic and pallidal stimulation in Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord. (2010) 25:578–86. doi: 10.1002/mds.22735, 20213817

35.

Odekerken

van Laar

Staal

Mosch

Hoffmann

Nijssen

. Subthalamic nucleus versus globus pallidus bilateral deep brain stimulation for advanced Parkinson's disease (NSTAPS study): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. (2013) 12:37–44. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(12)70264-8

36.

Mansouri

Taslimi

Badhiwala

Witiw

Nassiri

Odekerken

VJJ

. Deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease: meta-analysis of results of randomized trials at varying lengths of follow-up. J Neurosurg. (2018) 128:1199–213. doi: 10.3171/2016.11.JNS16715, 28665252

37.

Lachenmayer

Murset

Antih

Debove

Muellner

Bompart

. Subthalamic and pallidal deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease-meta-analysis of outcomes. NPJ Parkinsons Dis. (2021) 7:77. doi: 10.1038/s41531-021-00223-5, 34489472

38.

Odekerken

Boel

Schmand

de Haan

Figee

van den Munckhof

. GPi vs STN deep brain stimulation for Parkinson disease: three-year follow-up. Neurology. (2016) 86:755–61. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000002401

39.

Weaver

Follett

Stern

Luo

Harris

Hur

. Randomized trial of deep brain stimulation for Parkinson disease: thirty-six-month outcomes. Neurology. (2012) 79:55–65. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e31825dcdc1, 22722632

40.

Fahn

Elton

. Unified Parkinson's disease rating scale (UPDRS) In: Fahn

Marsden

Calne

Goldstein

, editors. Recent developments in Parkinson's disease. 2nd ed. Florham Park, NJ: Macmillan Healthcare Information (1987). 153–63. 295–304

41.

Schwab

England

. Projection technique for evaluating surgery in Parkinson’s disease In: Billingham

Donaldson

, editors. Third symposium on Parkinson’s disease. Edinburgh: Livingstone (1969). 152–8.

42.

Peto

Jenkinson

Fitzpatrick

Greenhall

. The development and validation of a short measure of functioning and well being for individuals with Parkinson's disease. Qual Life Res. (1995) 4:241–8. doi: 10.1007/BF02260863, 7613534

43.

Beck

Ward

Mendelson

Mock

Erbaugh

. An inventory for measuring depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry. (1961) 4:561–71. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1961.01710120031004, 13688369

44.

Mattis

Dementia rating scale (1988). Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

45.

Katz

Luciano

Carlson

Luo

Marks

Jr Larson

. Differential effects of deep brain stimulation target on motor subtypes in Parkinson's disease. Ann Neurol. (2015) 77:710–9. doi: 10.1002/ana.24374, 25627340

46.

Mei

Eisinger

Tsuboi

Foote

Hass

. Three-year gait and axial outcomes of bilateral STN and GPi Parkinson's disease deep brain stimulation. Front Hum Neurosci. (2020) 14:1. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2020.00001, 32116598

47.

Mahlknecht

Peball

Mair

Werkmann

Nocker

Wolf

. Has deep brain stimulation changed the very long-term outcome of Parkinson's disease? A controlled longitudinal study. Mov Disord Clin Pract. (2020) 7:782–7. doi: 10.1002/mdc3.13039, 33033735

48.

Mahlknecht

Foltynie

Limousin

Poewe

. How does deep brain stimulation change the course of Parkinson's disease? Mov Disord. (2022) 37:1581–92. doi: 10.1002/mds.29052, 35560443

49.

Cagnan

Denison

McIntyre

Brown

. Emerging technologies for improved deep brain stimulation. Nat Biotechnol. (2019) 37:1024–33. doi: 10.1038/s41587-019-0244-6, 31477926

Edited by: Genko Oyama, Saitama Medical University, Japan

Reviewed by: Zhengyu Lin, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China

Nils Schnalke, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Germany