
==== Front
Brain Commun
Brain Commun
braincomms
Brain Communications
2632-1297
Oxford University Press UK

10.1093/braincomms/fcae093
fcae093
Review Article
AcademicSubjects/MED00310
AcademicSubjects/SCI01870
Insertional effect following electrode implantation: an underreported but important phenomenon
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7586-2487
Hamani Clement Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada
Harquail Centre for Neuromodulation, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada
Division of Neurosurgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada

Davidson Benjamin Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada
Harquail Centre for Neuromodulation, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada
Division of Neurosurgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada

Lipsman Nir Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada
Harquail Centre for Neuromodulation, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada
Division of Neurosurgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1142-2842
Abrahao Agessandro Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada
Harquail Centre for Neuromodulation, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada
Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada

Nestor Sean M Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada
Harquail Centre for Neuromodulation, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada
Department of Psychiatry, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4754-2221
Rabin Jennifer S Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada
Harquail Centre for Neuromodulation, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada
Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada
Rehabilitation Sciences Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto M5G 1V7, Canada

Giacobbe Peter Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada
Harquail Centre for Neuromodulation, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada
Department of Psychiatry, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada

Pagano Rosana L Laboratory of Neuroscience, Hospital Sírio-Libanês, São Paulo, SP CEP 01308-060, Brazil

Campos Ana Carolina P Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada
Laboratory of Neuroscience, Hospital Sírio-Libanês, São Paulo, SP CEP 01308-060, Brazil

Correspondence to: Clement Hamani, MD, PhD Sunnybrook Research Institute 2075 Bayview Av, S126 Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada E-mail: clement.hamani@sunnybrook.ca
2024
28 3 2024
28 3 2024
6 3 fcae09311 9 2023
08 12 2023
26 3 2024
04 5 2024
© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Guarantors of Brain.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Deep brain stimulation has revolutionized the treatment of movement disorders and is gaining momentum in the treatment of several other neuropsychiatric disorders. In almost all applications of this therapy, the insertion of electrodes into the target has been shown to induce some degree of clinical improvement prior to stimulation onset. Disregarding this phenomenon, commonly referred to as ‘insertional effect’, can lead to biased results in clinical trials, as patients receiving sham stimulation may still experience some degree of symptom amelioration. Similar to the clinical scenario, an improvement in behavioural performance following electrode implantation has also been reported in preclinical models. From a neurohistopathologic perspective, the insertion of electrodes into the brain causes an initial trauma and inflammatory response, the activation of astrocytes, a focal release of gliotransmitters, the hyperexcitability of neurons in the vicinity of the implants, as well as neuroplastic and circuitry changes at a distance from the target. Taken together, it would appear that electrode insertion is not an inert process, but rather triggers a cascade of biological processes, and, as such, should be considered alongside the active delivery of stimulation as an active part of the deep brain stimulation therapy.

Hamani et al. examine how the insertion of deep brain stimulation electrodes into the brain has been shown to induce clinical benefits prior to stimulation onset. They review cellular, circuitry and behavioural changes associated with the electrode insertion and the impact of this effect on clinical trials.

Graphical Abstract

Graphical Abstract

insertional effect
electrode
deep brain stimulation
microthalamotomy
glia
Harquail Centre for Neuromodulation 10.13039/100031205
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Since its introduction, deep brain stimulation (DBS) has become a standard of care in the treatment of movement disorders and epilepsy and is under investigation for various neuropsychiatric disorders.1-4 After electrodes are implanted, clinicians often wait 2–4 weeks before activating the DBS system. Interestingly, during the initial days or weeks following surgery, patients frequently experience a noticeable clinical improvement prior to the delivery of stimulation. First reported in conditions such as tremor and Parkinson’s disease,5-7 this response has also been documented in patients treated for chronic pain,8 epilepsy9 and even psychiatric disorders.10 Because the clinical effects of electrode insertion are often similar to those observed after ablative procedures, this phenomenon was originally thought to be caused by a focal ‘microlesion’. However, decades of clinical observations and preclinical study have demonstrated that the clinical response associated with the ‘insertional effect’ may be due to complex biological processes rather than merely tissue disruption.

In preclinical models, the insertion of electrodes has been shown to induce substantial behavioural improvements, often mirroring what is observed in humans. Preclinical models allow for histopathologic examination at various timepoints after insertion, which has led to several explanatory mechanisms being proposed, including inflammatory responses near the electrode site, the activation of astrocytes, a focal activation hyperexcitability of neurons and the development of neuroplastic changes.

This review aims to characterize the insertional effect from four different angles. First, we describe the neuropathological changes that occur following the implantation of brain electrodes and probes. Second, we present some of the behavioural effects and mechanisms responsible for the development of an insertional effect in animal models. Third, we report the clinical consequences of electrode insertion. Finally, we outline how the insertional effect may interfere with the results of clinical trials.

Neurohistopathology of the insertional effect

Most neurohistopathological studies to date have been conducted in naïve rodent brains following the insertion of electrodes and microdialysis probes. The latter is discussed as it may help to characterize neurochemical tissue responses to brain implants.

Initial trauma related to the implant

The introduction of probes and electrodes into the brain leads to a series of short- and long-term changes resultant from the interaction between the biomaterial and the surrounding neural tissue.11-18 At first, the insertion of an implant focally damages cells, capillaries, the extracellular matrix, and disrupts the blood brain barrier (BBB) (Fig. 1).15,19,20 Injured capillaries may lead to leakage of erythrocytes, activation of platelets15 and the development of a localized haematoma.21 BBB disruption may culminate with the extravasation of inflammatory plasma proteins, a decrease in focal oxygen/nutrient delivery, microglial activation, mitochondrial dysfunction, increased oxidative stress and the accumulation of neurotoxic products in the brain parenchyma.20,22-25

Figure 1 Neurochemical mechanisms of electrode insertion in the brain parenchyma. (A) The mechanical insertion of the electrode into the target leads to a disruption of small blood vessels causing local edema, focal bleeding and leakage from the blood brain barrier. Injury to the brain parenchyma may lead to mitochondrial stress and the release of reactive-oxygen species (ROS) that may be responsible for a transient decrease in local oxygenation. (B) This initial disruption may induce a transient decrease in local glucose metabolism, a functional disruption in connectivity between the target region and interconnected structures, as well as neuronal stress. (C) In response to the insult, pericytes and endothelial cells will attempt to counter the acute microenvironment stress by re-establishing the BBB integrity, attenuating the infiltration of peripheral immune cells, and inducing angiogenesis. (D) Resident NG2-precursor cells migrate to the implanted site and differentiate into astrocytes, oligodendrocytes or neurons in the attempt to mitigate the insult response. (E) The stress induced by the electrode implantation leads to the formation of several damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) that are responsible for the chemoattraction of classically activated microglia and astrocytes. These cells form a protective capsule, commonly called ‘glial scar’, that leads to local metabolic and functional changes due to the release of pro-inflammatory and pro-resolving mediators. These mediators may influence the maturation of NG2-precursor cells into astrocytes and axonal-growth neurons that will influence the connectivity of the target area.

Hours after the initial injury, a transient focal reduction in glucose metabolism can be observed surrounding the electrode,26 and in areas anatomically connected with the lesioned site.27 Other early responses include microglia activation and migration towards the implant,28,29,30-32 as well as the activation of local astrocytes that undergo morphological changes, becoming hypertrophied (Fig. 1).13,26,30,33-35

Within a few days, an encapsulating sheath begins to form around the electrode.28,29,36 Pericytes, present in capillary walls, undergo morphological changes and contribute to local angiogenesis within the newly forming sheath.37 This vascularized sheath helps to re-establish the BBB integrity, blood flow regulation and to reduce brain exposure to peripheral inflammatory cells and pathogens.37-39

The abovementioned processes lead to neuronal apoptosis and local cell death along the tract and at the target site (Fig. 1).19 Also injured are fibres en passant, which may project to nearby or distant brain regions.40 Argyrophilic neurons and fine silver deposits denoting degenerating neurites, nerve terminals and fibres may be observed as early as 24 h after probe implantation, becoming increasingly prominent with longer survival times.40 However, not all surrounding neurons perish. Surviving neurons may show an increased expression of immediate early genes41 and potentially release excitatory amino acids in response to the implant-induced injury.42-44 The vitality of neurons surrounding the electrodes is essential for a stable signal transmission and eventual stimulation responses.45

Glial response and reactive gliosis

Over the first six weeks following electrode insertion, the surrounding tissue undergoes a process known as reactive gliosis, a response of the CNS to seal the damaged site, restrict focal inflammatory responses and limit neuronal loss.34,46-51 Reactive gliosis involves the recruitment of astrocytes, microglia and NG2-expressing glial precursors,48,52,53 as well as angiogenesis and revascularization of the area surrounding the lesion (Fig. 1).54 Within the first week after the insertion of brain electrodes or probes, a large number of reactive astrocytes, microglia and laminin labelled vessels may be observed around the implant.55 Between 2 and 6 weeks, connective tissue and a loosely organized sheath of glial cells may be encountered.13,49,51,56-62 This process has been demonstrated in rodents,46-49,63 cats64 and non-human primates.65

In addition to helping form an encapsulating sheath, astrocytes play a crucial role in neurotransmitter clearance, neuroplasticity, neuroinflammation, the regulation of cerebral blood flow and the maintenance of extracellular ionic concentrations.66-69 Following the insertion of electrodes/probes into the brain, glia cells in the vicinity of the implants are activated and undergo morphological changes (Fig. 1).19,20

Reactive astrocytes are characterized by hypertrophic somata and processes,70 synthesize a higher than normal amount of glial-fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and express progenitor markers, such as vimentin, nestin and synemin.48,71,72 When active, a large proportion of astrocytes assume an A1 pro-inflammatory secretion phenotype, losing their ability to prune synapses and regulate glutamatergic clearance.73 Astrocytes may also undergo an A2 anti-inflammatory/restorer phenotype, which is associated with neuroprotective and reparative effects via the secretion of neurotrophic factors and synaptogenesis.73-75 Mature astrocytes do not normally divide, but may acquire stem cell properties and generate cells that initiate repair after brain injury.46

Microglia also contribute to the formation of a physical barrier between the device and brain parenchyma.19 Under normal circumstances, microglia exist in a resting or ramified state near blood vessels, constantly monitoring the environment for pathological or injury signals.76-78 Upon electrode insertion, they are attracted to the injured territory, and extend lamellipodia to help ensheath the implants. These cells are stimulated following exposure to pathogen- or endogen-associated molecular patterns, endogenous ligands that act on toll-like-receptors (e.g. heat-shock proteins and fibrinogen), or when there is a lack of immunosuppressive signals.77 Activated microglia undergo structural changes, assume an amoeboid morphology,77,79 proliferate,80 and migrate to the site of injury in an attempt to enclose the pathological process and shield the BBB (Fig. 1).77,78,81,82 In contrast to the resting state, active microglia secrete chemokine attractants (e.g. monocyte chemoattractant proteins and macrophage inflammatory proteins), pro-inflammatory cytokines (e.g. tumour necrosis factor-α, certain interleukins and interferons), transforming growth factors, reactive oxygen and nitrogen species (ROS, RNS) and neurotrophic factors (e.g. brain derived neurotropic factor, nerve growth factor and neurotrophin-3).15,19,83,84 The immune response promoted by microglia is critical to restrict damage and facilitate repair, helping to limit toxicity and eliminate foreign materials and debris.

NG2 cells are resident glial progenitors that exist in the developing and mature mammalian CNS.85-88 NG2 cells are primarily the precursors of oligodendrocytes, but can also form other glial and neuronal cell types.85 In addition to their role as glial progenitors, these cells migrate, proliferate and inhibit axonal growth, being an important element in the formation of glial scars.89,90 Both NG2 glia and microglia migrate towards inserted probes (Fig. 1). NG2 glia, however, act in a more protracted manner (within hours), forming synaptic connections with nearby neurons.91 When neurons are injured by the insertion of implants, the differentiation of NG2 glial cells into astrocytes to form the glial scar reduces the number of cells that may differentiate into oligodendrocytes.91 This may yield deficits in the remyelination of injured neurons, contributing to the neuronal apoptosis observed following a surge in focal inflammatory processes in the injured tissue.90,91

Chronic implants

By 6–12 weeks post-electrode or probe implantation, reactive astrocytes are largely condensed in an increasingly compact sheath (Fig. 2).55,58 The continuous presence of the implant results in a sustained response that maintains the gliotic sheath.41,51,58 The capsule that forms around the implant is surrounded by an extracellular matrix.30,92-94 Tight junctions between microglia and astrocytes during scar tissue formation may act as a biochemical and mechanical barrier. Should the implant be a microdialysis probe or a neurochemical sensor, this may prevent the diffusion of ions, solutes and chemical signalling molecules secreted from surrounding neurons. Over time, the activity of microglia and the acute foreign body reaction to the implant may fade, despite the presence of the sheath.95

Figure 2 Mechanisms of electrode implantation. Preclinical studies suggest that classically activated microglia and astrocytes may play a pivotal role in the mechanisms of electrode implantation, since anti-inflammatory drugs attenuate its antidepressant-like effect. Classically activated microglia may also be responsible for the clearance of local protein aggregates. On the other hand, glial scar astrocytes are often related to an alternative activation that releases pro-resolving mediators and increases glutamate clearance in an attempt to promote homoeostasis and is associated with the development of hyperexcitability in surviving neurons. Electrode implantation is also responsible for the increased expression of colocalized serotoninergic receptors and p11 (S100A10). This response is influenced by inflammatory mediators and may affect the increased input to efferent areas. Beyond the modulation of previously existing connections, electrode implantation may interfere with the formation of new connections with surrounding areas. Efferent and distant regions are also affected, presenting an increase in tissue volume, accounted by angiogenesis and astrocytes.

Compared to the normal tissue, the immediate vicinity of the implants tends to have a lower nerve fibre density and a reduced number of cell bodies.45,96-98 That said, neurons near the gliotic process display increased activity, with reduced inhibitory synaptic currents, a downregulation of glutamine synthetase and reduced gamma-aminobutyric acid transmission.99 In addition, astrocytes can release gliotransmitters, form intricate functional connections with neurons and modulate both pre- and postsynaptic transmission (Fig. 2).20,49,100-102,99 Evidence of altered neuronal function can be found in regions projecting to or receiving projections from the target. These include volumetric changes, an increase in hippocampal neurogenesis, altered circuit connectivity, increased metabolic activity and blood vessel diameter (Fig. 2).57,103-105 This suggests that the chronic presence of electrodes in the brain parenchyma is not an inert event. Astrocytes and other glial elements change the normal functioning of nearby neurons, leading to a series of consequences, both focally and at a distance from the target.

While many of the findings above have been studied in rodents, similar observations have been noted in non-human primates, including reactive gliosis, the accumulation of microglia, the development of a glial sheath and some degree of neuronal loss.65,106,107

Human implants

General considerations

To investigate the tissue response to the chronic implantation of leads in humans, post-mortem samples from patients treated with DBS have been analysed. Data from such studies, however, need to be considered with caution, as samples are collected from patients with different pathological states, contrasting with preclinical material obtained from naïve animals. Moreover, individuals who undergo post-mortem autopsy have usually been treated with DBS for prolonged periods of time. As a result, disentangling the consequences of electrode implantation and stimulation may not always be possible.

Neuropathology

Similar to preclinical work, most human reports revealed long-standing gliosis, with the presence of Rosenthal fibres (accumulation of aggregated glial-fibrillary acidic protein in astrocytes), as well as gemistocytic and fibrillary astrocytes around the electrodes.59,108-120 Studies described the presence of a fibrous gliotic sheath around the electrode site with a thickness that varied from 25 μm to over 150 μm.108,119 Additional cells in the vicinity of the implants were microglia, mononuclear leucocytes, macrophages and multinucleated giant cells.59,111,112,116-119,121,122 Collagenous accumulation has also been reported.108

In contrast to preclinical studies, neuronal loss did not seem to be a prominent feature in human samples.113,119 Tissue damage surrounding the electrodes has been characterized by vacuolization, myelin loss, axonal spheroids, iron deposits (uncommon) and spongiosis (rare).121 However, some of these responses were only described when electrodes composed of materials other than platinum/iridium were used,119 and in older studies, which did not consider the safety limits of charge and pulse amplitude.119,123-125 Most recent pathological studies did not reveal neuronal loss at a distance > 500 μm from the electrode site.59,126 In addition to the material of the implants, differences in neuronal death between human and animal studies may be due to the timing of electrode removal. In preclinical work, electrodes are removed right after death or even in live animals. This may injure local cytoarchitecture,57 as nearby glial cells may adhere to the implant.122 In pathological human specimens, the post-mortem removal of the implants occurs long after death in patients who had their electrodes implanted for a long period of time. As a result, the surrounding glial sheath is often compact and only a few cells are adherent to the implant.58

To disentangle the neuropathological consequences of electrode implantation and chronic stimulation, a strategy adopted by a few studies was to compare tissue samples surrounding active (i.e. used to deliver chronic stimulation) and non-active stimulation contacts. In general, while both showed similar levels of gliosis,115,121,127 enlarged axons and axonal spheroids were more often noticed around active contacts.121 Despite these small differences, based on the similar findings noted in the two scenarios, it is likely that the histopathological response to DBS described in recent studies might be largely related to the implants, and not the delivery of current per se.

Preclinical models: behavioural effects of electrode insertion and mechanisms

Despite the vast clinical use of DBS for the treatment of movement disorders, the behavioural consequences of electrode insertion have been mainly documented in preclinical models of psychiatric and cognitive disorders. The most convincing behavioural effects came from studies comparing rodents who either underwent surgery without electrode implantation or received electrode implants with or without stimulation. Another study design in which the insertional effect was appreciated involves the use of serial behavioural measurements before and after surgery (i.e. at baseline, following electrode implantation and after the delivery of stimulation). This design, however, does not allow for the measurement of long-term consequences of electrode insertion, since DBS is often introduced days/weeks after the surgical procedure.

When considering the insertional effect in rodents, one should take into account the ratio between electrode diameter and brain volume. Though electrodes commonly used in humans are ∼5–15-fold thicker than the ones used in rodents, the human brain volume is orders of magnitude larger. This difference is maximal in frontal cortical regions, but is also pronounced in subcortical structures. Despite this limitation, preclinical models have been instrumental to develop mechanistic studies and to support the notion that the insertional effect has a biological substrate. As observed in humans, the behavioural effects of electrode insertion in rodents were often similar to those observed following DBS administration, albeit of lesser magnitude.128,129

Behavioural data

In patients with treatment refractory depression, DBS delivered to the subgenual cingulum has been investigated with promising results.10,128,130,131 To study potential mechanisms and the kinetics of DBS, stimulation has been applied to an analogous region (i.e. ventromedial prefrontal cortex; vmPFC) in rodents undergoing different behavioural paradigms.104,128-130,132-136 The placement of vmPFC electrodes in the absence of stimulation was found to produce antidepressant-, anxiolytic- and antianhedonic-like effects in the forced swim test, novelty suppressed feeding and sucrose preference test.104,128-130,133-136 In some of these studies, the effects of electrode insertion were long-lasting133 and had a magnitude comparable to that observed after DBS.104,128-130,133-136

In models of cognitive degeneration, contrasting results have been reported. A significant improvement in the radial arm water maze test was found in Alzheimer’s disease transgenic animals briefly implanted with hippocampal electrodes.137 In contrast, no major differences in memory performance were found between rats that did or did not receive nucleus basalis of Meynert electrode implants in the 192 IgG-saporin model.138

In humans, DBS delivered to the subthalamic nucleus (STN) is considered to be a standard of care treatment for motor symptoms in Parkinson’s disease.139,140 To study mechanisms of STN DBS in preclinical models, naïve and parkinsonian rodents implanted with electrodes were tested in different motor and cognitive paradigms. In naïve rodents undergoing a serial reaction time task, electrode insertion increased motor time, while low current DBS reduced premature responses.141 In addition, rats with implanted electrodes had a significant memory impairment in the novel object recognition task.82 As for motor effects, both electrode insertion and stimulation delivered to hemiparkinsonian rodents reduced immobility time on a bar,142,143 while only the latter treatment improved amphetamine-induced rotations142-144 and motor performance in the rotarod test.144 In summary, STN electrode insertion was found to play a role on impulsivity and memory disturbance, while it was only associated with motor improvement in some tests. In contrast, the insertion of electrodes in the pedunculopontine nucleus led to a mild exacerbation in freezing of gait.145

Mechanisms

Though the mechanisms responsible for the insertional effect are largely unknown, preclinical studies have considered a few hypotheses. The first is the development of a neuroinflammatory response to the injury produced by the electrodes and a subsequent glial reaction.82 As described above, the continuous presence of brain implants results in a sustained response that maintains a gliotic sheath, which is largely comprised of reactive astrocytes and microglia.41,51,58 The systemic administration of anti-inflammatories, but not opioids, countered the antidepressant-like effects of vmPFC electrode insertion, as well as the increased expression of GFAP, TNF-alpha and COX associated with the implants.104,133 Another proposed mechanism is the activation of astrocytes (Fig. 2). The insertion of brain electrodes in rodents induces an astrocyte-mediated release of glutamate and adenosine, which modulate the activity of neurons and glial cells in the vicinity of the electrodes.104,133,146,147 In cultured astrocytes, the insertion of electrodes activates calcium signalling and adenosine triphosphate (ATP) release.148,149

Also important for the development of an insertional effect are the physiological responses of neurons in the region of the implants. As described above, the immediate vicinity of the electrodes is characterized by a reduction in nerve fibre density and the number of cell bodies.45,96,97 However, surviving neurons show reduced inhibitory synaptic currents, a downregulation of glutamine synthetase and reduced gamma-aminobutyric acid transmission.99 With the chronic interaction between active astrocytes and neurons, the latter tend to become hyperexcitable,99 a scenario that may lead to focal and distant changes (Fig. 2).

On a circuitry level, the insertion of electrodes in preclinical models was shown to exert changes at a distance from the target. In rodents, positron emission tomography (PET) studies following vmPFC electrode implantation and DBS showed different metabolic patterns, suggesting the recruitment of alternative networks.103 Mice implanted with vmPFC DBS electrodes presented local hippocampal and thalamic volumetric enlargement compared to animals receiving no electrode implants,105 an effect attributed to an increase in the size of astrocytes and the diameter of blood vessels.105 In AD transgenic mice, the insertion of hippocampal electrodes was found to increase hippocampal neurogenesis and reduce the number of amyloid plaques.137

p11 is a protein expressed in brain regions implicated in the pathophysiology of depression150-152 that co-localizes with 5-HT1B and other serotonergic receptors.153,154 p11 mRNA is reduced in depression states,155 and increases following the administration of different classes of drugs and electroconvulsive therapy.156,157 This protein has been associated with the antidepressant-like effects of vmPFC electrode implantation.133 Favouring the involvement of a serotonergic mechanism in the behavioural consequences of electrode insertion, the administration of para-chlorophenyl-alanine methyl ester, a drug that reduces serotonin synthesis, countered the antidepressant-like response of vmPFC implants in rodents.133 In addition, the increase in p11 associated with an insertional effect was mitigated by the administration of anti-inflammatory agents,104 suggesting a potential link between neuroinflammation, p11 expression and serotonergic transmission after electrode insertion.

DBS has been shown to reduce inflammatory responses in cultures of astrocytes143 and in structures at a distance from the target in rodent models of epilepsy,158 stroke,159 Alzheimer’s disease,160 traumatic brain injury161 and parkinsonian states.142,143 Similarly, the insertion of STN electrodes mitigated the increased expression of multiple cytokines observed in the striatum of parkinsonian rats, reduced striatal glutamate release and augmented the relative concentration of GABA.142

In summary, the insertion of electrodes into the brain is associated with processes that go far beyond a simple mechanical effect. The initial inflammatory response and the subsequent gliotic reaction that occurs near the electrode site induce lasting changes in glial cells and neurons, which may present altered patterns of neurotransmitter release and become hyperexcitable. These combined responses may ultimately induce a complex interplay of focal and distant changes that actively lead to behavioural modifications.

Insertional effect in clinical practice

The amelioration of symptoms following electrode insertion has been reported in multiple conditions. The presence of an insertional effect is more easily demonstrated in patients with movement disorders and epilepsy, as it can be objectively documented. In pain and psychiatry, immediate postoperative improvements are only subjectively reported (Fig. 3).

Figure 3 Clinical consequences of the insertional effect. NSAID, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; LEDD, levodopa equivalent daily dosage; PD, Parkinson’s disease; TRD, treatment-resistant depression; OCD, obsessive-compulsive disorder. *Adverse effects of electrode implantation are similar to those of DBS; **controversial results when the hippocampus is targeted.

Tremor

Some of the first observations of an insertional effect were provided by studies using thalamic (ventral intermediate nucleus; Vim) DBS for Parkinson's disease (PD) and essential tremor (ET).5-7 Based on the similarities in outcome between electrode insertion and thalamic lesions (i.e. thalamotomy), the clinical improvement observed after the former was also called ‘microthalamotomy’.

In general, tremor improvement after electrode insertion is more pronounced early after surgery, but may persist for weeks, months and even years.5,6,162-164 In ET, but also in PD, series that specifically studied the clinical effects of electrode insertion suggested that this phenomenon was of clinical relevance in ∼50% of patients, with an average duration of 25 days.162 In ET, the development of an insertional effect seems to indicate an accurate targeting strategy and predict a good postoperative response to DBS.163 In addition to Vim, electrode implants in the region of the zona incerta and prelemniscal radiation have also been associated with an insertional effect, with patients presenting a substantial improvement and even tremor arrest.165 In patients with ET and PD, the insertion of electrodes in the posterior subthalamic area was found to reduce the amplitude and duration of saccades.166

From a mechanistic standpoint, the insertion of thalamic electrodes in patients with multiple forms of tremor (essential tremor, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis) decreased coherence between the cerebellar thalamus and electromyography activity at the tremor frequency.167 In patients with ET, the implantation of thalamic DBS electrodes increased the focal release of adenosine,168,169 corroborating results previously observed in preclinical models.

Parkinson’s disease

STN electrode insertion in patients with PD can result in a 17–30% reduction in Unified Parkinson’s disease rating scale (UPDRS) scores,170-174 and reductions in bradykinesia, tremor and rigidity in the order of 14–42%.171,172 Clinical amelioration after electrode implantation in PD is maximal in the first postoperative days but may still be present weeks after the procedure.175,176 Similar to what has been described for tremor, PD patients who present an insertional effect were shown to have a good postoperative response to DBS.177 Objective improvements associated with electrode insertion have been documented in the finger tapping velocity, pronation-supination, and the boxing with touch tests.178

Rarely, negative insertional effects have been observed, including transient dyskinesias in 10% of patients.171 Although these are often mild, severe dyskinesias and even ballistic movements have been reported.179 One of the most common complications of STN DBS surgery is the development of a decrease in verbal fluency.180 This adverse event has also been described following electrode insertion,181-184 being attributed to the microlesion of fibre bundles, the cingulum and basal ganglia structures. STN electrode insertion in the postoperative period has also been suggested to alter the recognition of facial emotions,185 transiently increase the latency for saccades,186 and to induce rapid eye movement sleep.187

The development of an insertional effect has also been documented following electrode insertion to the other major target in the treatment of PD—the globus pallidus internus (GPi). One series reported that almost 50% of GPi-implanted subjects experienced a positive insertional effect, with some presenting >50% improvements in UPDRS scores and a reduction in postoperatively LDOPA requirement.188 In addition to STN and GPi targets, a substantial improvement in motor symptoms has also been documented following electrode insertion in the prelemniscal radiation, zona incerta (tremor and rigidity),189 and in the vicinity of the STN (suboptimally placed electrodes).190

In patients undergoing DBS surgery, microelectrode mapping (MER) is a commonly used strategy to refine surgical targeting that has been associated with an insertional effect in some instances.172,191 The technique consists of intraoperative recording of local neuronal activity and/or local field potentials along with the administration of low current stimulation.192-194 Electrodes used during MER are ∼10-fold thinner than the actual DBS electrodes, but multiple trajectories may be required for an adequate establishment of the optimal target site.192-194 Interestingly, positive insertional effects have not been found to correlate with the number of brain penetrations.172 The development of an insertional effect following MER correlated with the normalization of the H reflex.195

Neuroimaging studies have helped to understand distant effects of electrode insertion. PET studies have shown that the insertion of STN electrodes in PD patients reduces glucose utilization in the putamen, globus pallidus, ventrolateral and mediodorsal thalamic regions, while increasing metabolism in the sensorimotor cortex and cerebellum.196 This pattern was similar, but with lower magnitude changes, than the one observed following STN lesions and DBS.197,198 An fMRI study involving visually triggered finger tapping has also revealed a lower signal in cortical and subcortical regions (thalamus, basal ganglia) following electrode insertion compared to the preoperative period.173 In some of these studies, rigidity and axial symptoms recorded after electrode insertion were inversely correlated to the activation of the putamen and globus pallidus.173

In contrast to the somewhat homogeneous results of functional neuroimaging reports, connectivity analyses have shown different patterns of response following DBS and electrode insertion. While STN stimulation induced changes primarily in cortical structures, electrode insertion was associated with an increased centrality and functional connectivity in the brainstem,199 as well as a decrease in homogeneity in the default mode network (DMN), prefrontal cortex and the cerebello-thalamocortical circuit.200 Also favouring the notion that electrode insertion modulates basal ganglia circuits, electrophysiological recordings have shown a significant increase in low-frequency fluctuations in the putamen and precentral gyrus, a decrease in these fluctuations in structures of the DMN and the executive control network.174

Taken together, these findings suggest that the insertional effect is mediated, at least in part, by widespread circuitry modulation. Though the mechanisms responsible for this phenomenon in patients with PD are still unclear, cortical and subcortical oedema,173 and the functional or anatomical disruption of white matter bundles in the trajectory of the electrodes have been suggested to play a role.182

Dystonia

Similar to other movement disorders, substantial clinical and objective kinematic improvements have been described in patients with dystonia implanted with GPi electrodes.178 In a recent study, almost 80% of patients with Meige syndrome had a 49% reduction in Burke Fahn Marsden Dystonia scores following electrode implantation.201 In these patients, a positive correlation was found between the development of an insertional effect and postoperative outcome at 12 months.201 In patients with generalized dystonia, trials that reported an insertional effect described a substantial amelioration in dystonic symptoms (often >50%) following GPi electrode implantation lasting days to weeks.202,203

Epilepsy

In epilepsy, patients with distinct seizure types and foci have been treated with DBS in different brain targets.204 Anterior thalamic nucleus (ANT) and hippocampus stimulation have been proposed for the treatment of focal seizures, including those originating in the temporal lobe. In contrast, centromedian (CM) and subthalamic DBS have been investigated in patients with generalized seizures.204

In the ANT, electrode insertion alone has been shown to substantially reduce the frequency of seizures by 50–70% in more than 50% of patients, an effect that may last from weeks to months.9,205-208 In some ANT-DBS studies, the reduction in seizure rate after electrode insertion accounted for most of the benefits observed in the postoperative period, with no further outcome changes being documented after DBS onset.206 As for CM electrode implants, a study reported a ≥50% reduction in seizure rate in up to 70% of patients,209 an effect that lasted one month following the procedure.209 Results in trials implanting hippocampal electrodes have been inconsistent with seizure reduction being demonstrated in one study,210 but not in other.211

Pain

Very few reports have described an effect of electrode insertion in chronic pain patients. In one of the few retrospective series addressing this issue, 43% of patients implanted with DBS systems in sensory thalamic regions had a substantial reduction in pain scores (60–100%) following electrode implantation.8,212 Recurrence of pain in these patients occurred within a median of 3 months after surgery.8 Twice as many patients who presented an insertional effect following electrode placement responded to DBS at long-term.8 Similar to Parkinson’s disease, transient side-effects have also been reported after electrode insertion in patients with chronic pain. As an example, a patient with facial pain developed stutter that lasted 12 days following the insertion of a thalamic electrode.213

In addition to chronic neuropathic pain, DBS has also been used to treat patients with cluster headache and short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache (SUNCT). Brain regions commonly targeted for these applications are the hypothalamus and the ventral tegmental area. A few studies have clearly reported the presence of an insertional effect. In one of the series, two out of 11 patients implanted with hypothalamic electrodes had a substantial clinical improvement 1 month after surgery prior to DBS.214 After receiving ventral tegmental area implants, six out of 21 patients with cluster headache215 and 4 of 11 patients with SUNCT216 had an improvement in the number of attacks after electrode placement that lasted 1–3 months postoperatively.

Another neuromodulation modality under investigation for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain is motor cortex stimulation. This technique involves the placement of electrodes over motor cortical regions, followed by electrical stimulation delivered through a pulse generator. Despite the promising results observed in open label studies,212 trials comparing pain scores during active versus sham treatment217 or high versus low stimulation (longer ‘on’ versus ‘off’ stimulation cycling)218 found no differences in clinical response. In some of these studies, however, an analgesic effect prior to the delivery of stimulation could be clearly observed.217 In a recent report in which the effects of electrode insertion were taken into account, a >50% reduction in pain scores was reported in ∼40% of patients.219 More strikingly, the probability of observing some degree of postoperative improvement while receiving stimulation in patients who developed an insertional effect was close to 100%.219

Psychiatry

In psychiatry, DBS has been approved for the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and is currently under investigation for conditions such as major depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). A meta-analysis of trials on DBS for OCD revealed that the insertion of electrodes into the target in the absence of stimulation (sham) reduced Yale-Brown obsessive-compulsive scale scores by 15%.220 In a retrospective chart-review of studies using DBS to treat refractory depression, patients who did and did not receive anti-inflammatory drugs in the postoperative period were separated in groups. Early response during the first week after surgery was similar between groups.133 The antidepressant effects of DBS were only observed in patients who did not receive anti-inflammatory drugs.133 In a recent clinical trial investigating the effects of DBS in patients with PTSD, one individual (out of a total of four) reported that the best improvement she experienced following surgery occurred in the immediate postoperative period.221

Discussion and perspectives for the design of clinical trials

Though the clinical effects of electrode insertion have been appreciated for decades, it was not until recently that its mechanisms of action and relevance for trial design have been recognized. In humans, an improvement in symptoms following electrode insertion has been documented in almost every DBS application. As described above, this response is maximal within days of the procedure, but may last for weeks and even months. This can be treacherous for the future of the field because, for DBS applications to be approved, a common trial design involves a blinded comparison of active versus sham stimulation (i.e. systems set at zero amplitude or inactive).222 Clinical assessments are then commonly conducted at 3 months or 6 months after surgery, with no short-term evaluations. As the development of an insertional effect is rarely considered, its occurrence is not always detected, but can certainly influence the overall results. Without a proper trial design, it is difficult to discern the consequences of electrode insertion from those associated with stimulation-induced plasticity and a carry-over effect from electrode insertion. Ideally, postoperative scores should be serially measured until their values are back to preoperative baseline. At present, improvements in the sham-stimulated group are often attributed to placebo effects, which are certainly a factor to be considered should other factors be discarded.

In theory, should an insertional effect occur, patients in the sham-treated group would have better scores compared to those recorded at baseline and the effects of DBS would be underestimated. For example, even 3 months after surgery, one RCT conducted in patients with PD treated with DBS reported a significantly better quality of life and a modest reduction in motor scores in non-stimulated controls.223 In a randomized control trial comparing active versus sham anterior thalamic nucleus stimulation for epilepsy, the frequency of seizures within the first month of electrode placement was in the order of 20% in both groups compared to baseline.224 In the sham-treated group, a 20–30% decrease in seizure rate was still observed 3 months after surgery. Only 4 months after the procedure differences between groups became significant.224 If the trial had its primary outcome set at 3 months, no differences between active and sham stimulation would have been detected and the study would have likely failed to demonstrate efficacy.

In animal models, several studies have shown that the implantation of vmPFC electrodes induces antidepressant-, anxiolytic- and antianhedonic-like effects.104,128-130,133-136 In the clinic, SCG DBS trials have shown a 10–30% reduction in validated depression scores in patients treated with sham SCG stimulation compared to baseline.10,225 In a study that initiated SCG DBS soon after surgery, an important reduction in depression scores was noted in 87.5% of patients in the first postoperative week.226 This response subsided over the first postoperative month, with only 37.5% of patients being characterized as responders. Only 6 months after stimulation onset a substantial DBS response was recaptured in most patients. This indicates the possibility of an insertional effect immediately after surgery that might have subsided within the first postoperative month.226

Similar to animal models, short-term differences between active and sham stimulation in randomized trials are often not significant.10,225 Considering that the effect of electrode insertion is so striking in rodents, clinical studies should consider either comparing DBS effects with non-implanted controls, or only finish the sham stimulation timeframe when scores return to baseline levels.

Conclusions

DBS has become standard of care in the treatment of refractory movement disorders, and is under investigation for the treatment of several neuropsychiatric disorders. In almost all DBS applications, the insertion of electrodes into the target induces some degree of clinical improvement. While this is often more pronounced at short-term, the effect of electrode insertion may last for weeks or even months. Disregarding this phenomenon may lead to potential biases in randomized clinical trials, which may show a symptomatic amelioration in patients with electrodes implanted and an equal degree of improvement following sham or active stimulation.

From a mechanistic standpoint, preclinical work has shown that, in addition to an initial inflammatory response, the placement of electrodes in the brain leads to more protracted responses. These include changes in the physiological interplay between astrocytes and other neural elements, a focal release of gliotransmitters, the presence of hyperexcitable neurons in the vicinity of the electrodes, as well as plasticity and neural changes at a distance from the target. This suggests that, rather than a simple neuroinflammatory response, the placement of brain electrodes leads to changes in neurophysiological substrates and its consequences culminate in a cascade of biological processes. With this in mind, we suggest that the implantation of brain electrodes should be considered to be an active part of the DBS therapy, which includes not only the administration of electrical current but also the placement of electrodes into the desired targets.

Acknowledgements

This work was conducted in part with funds from the Harquail Centre for Neuromodulation.

Funding

This work was conducted with support from funds of the Harquail Centre for Neuromodulation.

Competing interests

The authors report no competing interests.

Data availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.
==== Refs
References

1 Lee  DJ, Lozano  CS, Dallapiazza  RF, Lozano  AM. Current and future directions of deep brain stimulation for neurological and psychiatric disorders. J Neurosurg. 2019;131 (2 ):333–342.31370011
2 Lozano  AM, Lipsman  N, Bergman  H, et al  Deep brain stimulation: Current challenges and future directions. Nat Rev Neurol. 2019;15 (3 ):148–160.30683913
3 Awan  NR, Lozano  A, Hamani  C. Deep brain stimulation: Current and future perspectives. Neurosurg Focus. 2009;27 (1 ):E2.
4 Roy  HA, Green  AL, Aziz  TZ. State of the art: Novel applications for deep brain stimulation. Neuromodulation. 2018;21 (2 ):126–134.28516669
5 Tasker  RR . Deep brain stimulation is preferable to thalamotomy for tremor suppression. Surg Neurol. 1998;49 (2 ):145–153. discussion 153-4.9457264
6 Dormont  D, Cornu  P, Pidoux  B, et al  Chronic thalamic stimulation with three-dimensional MR stereotactic guidance. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1997;18 (6 ):1093–1107.9194437
7 Koller  W, Pahwa  R, Busenbark  K, et al  High-frequency unilateral thalamic stimulation in the treatment of essential and parkinsonian tremor. Ann Neurol. 1997;42 (3 ):292–299.9307249
8 Hamani  C, Schwalb  JM, Rezai  AR, Dostrovsky  JO, Davis  KD, Lozano  AM. Deep brain stimulation for chronic neuropathic pain: Long-term outcome and the incidence of insertional effect. Pain. 2006;125 (1–2 ):188–196.16797842
9 Thuberg  D, Buentjen  L, Holtkamp  M, et al  Deep brain stimulation for refractory focal epilepsy: Unraveling the insertional effect up to five months without stimulation. Neuromodulation. 2021;24 (2 ):373–379.33577139
10 Holtzheimer  PE, Husain  MM, Lisanby  SH, et al  Subcallosal cingulate deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant depression: A multisite, randomised, sham-controlled trial. Lancet Psychiatry. 2017;4 (11 ):839–849.28988904
11 Hamani  C, Luer  MS, Dujovny  M. Microdialysis in the human brain: Review of its applications. Neurol Res. 1997;19 (3 ):281–288.9192381
12 Bungay  PM, Newton-Vinson  P, Isele  W, Garris  PA, Justice  JB. Microdialysis of dopamine interpreted with quantitative model incorporating probe implantation trauma. J Neurochem. 2003;86 (4 ):932–946.12887691
13 Benveniste  H, Diemer  NH. Cellular reactions to implantation of a microdialysis tube in the rat hippocampus. Acta Neuropathol. 1987;74 (3 ):234–238.3673515
14 Benveniste  H, Huttemeier  PC. Microdialysis—Theory and application. Prog Neurobiol. 1990;35 (3 ):195–215.2236577
15 Ferguson  M, Sharma  D, Ross  D, Zhao  F. A critical review of microelectrode arrays and strategies for improving neural interfaces. Adv Healthc Mater. 2019;8 (19 ):e1900558.31464094
16 Anderson  JM, Rodriguez  A, Chang  DT. Foreign body reaction to biomaterials. Semin Immunol. 2008;20 (2 ):86–100.18162407
17 Luttikhuizen  DT, Harmsen  MC, Van Luyn  MJ. Cellular and molecular dynamics in the foreign body reaction. Tissue Eng. 2006;12 (7 ):1955–1970.16889525
18 Morais  JM, Papadimitrakopoulos  F, Burgess  DJ. Biomaterials/tissue interactions: Possible solutions to overcome foreign body response. AAPS J. 2010;12 (2 ):188–196.20143194
19 Wellman  SM, Kozai  TDY. Understanding the inflammatory tissue reaction to brain implants to improve neurochemical sensing performance. ACS Chem Neurosci. 2017;8 (12 ):2578–2582.29120167
20 Kozai  TD, Jaquins-Gerstl  AS, Vazquez  AL, Michael  AC, Cui  XT. Brain tissue responses to neural implants impact signal sensitivity and intervention strategies. ACS Chem Neurosci. 2015;6 (1 ):48–67.25546652
21 Benveniste  H . Brain microdialysis. J Neurochem. 1989;52 (6 ):1667–1679.2656913
22 Hawkins  BT, Davis  TP. The blood–brain barrier/neurovascular unit in health and disease. Pharmacol Rev. 2005;57 (2 ):173–185.15914466
23 Lifshitz  J, Sullivan  PG, Hovda  DA, Wieloch  T, McIntosh  TK. Mitochondrial damage and dysfunction in traumatic brain injury. Mitochondrion. 2004;4 (5–6 ):705–713.16120426
24 Bennett  C, Samikkannu  M, Mohammed  F, Dietrich  WD, Rajguru  SM, Prasad  A. Blood brain barrier (BBB)-disruption in intracortical silicon microelectrode implants. Biomaterials. 2018;164 :1–10.29477707
25 Bennett  C, Mohammed  F, Alvarez-Ciara  A, et al  Neuroinflammation, oxidative stress, and blood–brain barrier (BBB) disruption in acute Utah electrode array implants and the effect of deferoxamine as an iron chelator on acute foreign body response. Biomaterials. 2019;188 :144–159.30343257
26 Benveniste  H, Drejer  J, Schousboe  A, Diemer  NH. Regional cerebral glucose phosphorylation and blood flow after insertion of a microdialysis fiber through the dorsal hippocampus in the rat. J Neurochem. 1987;49 (3 ):729–734.3612121
27 Feeney  DM, Baron  JC. Diaschisis. Stroke. 1986;17 (5 ):817–830.3532434
28 Stence  N, Waite  M, Dailey  ME. Dynamics of microglial activation: A confocal time-lapse analysis in hippocampal slices. Glia. 2001;33 (3 ):256–266.11241743
29 Kozai  TD, Gugel  Z, Li  X, et al  Chronic tissue response to carboxymethyl cellulose based dissolvable insertion needle for ultra-small neural probes. Biomaterials. 2014;35 (34 ):9255–9268.25128375
30 Fawcett  JW, Asher  RA. The glial scar and central nervous system repair. Brain Res Bull. 1999;49 (6 ):377–391.10483914
31 Loane  DJ, Byrnes  KR. Role of microglia in neurotrauma. Neurotherapeutics. 2010;7 (4 ):366–377.20880501
32 Benarroch  EE . Microglia: Multiple roles in surveillance, circuit shaping, and response to injury. Neurology. 2013;81 (12 ):1079–1088.23946308
33 Landis  DM . The early reactions of non-neuronal cells to brain injury. Annu Rev Neurosci. 1994;17 :133–151.8210172
34 Sofroniew  MV . Molecular dissection of reactive astrogliosis and glial scar formation. Trends Neurosci. 2009;32 (12 ):638–647.19782411
35 Eddleston  M, Mucke  L. Molecular profile of reactive astrocytes—Implications for their role in neurologic disease. Neuroscience. 1993;54 (1 ):15–36.8515840
36 Kozai  TD, Vazquez  AL, Weaver  CL, Kim  SG, Cui  XT. In vivo two-photon microscopy reveals immediate microglial reaction to implantation of microelectrode through extension of processes. J Neural Eng. 2012;9 (6 ):066001.23075490
37 Sweeney  MD, Ayyadurai  S, Zlokovic  BV. Pericytes of the neurovascular unit: Key functions and signaling pathways. Nat Neurosci. 2016;19 (6 ):771–783.27227366
38 Dalkara  T, Gursoy-Ozdemir  Y, Yemisci  M. Brain microvascular pericytes in health and disease. Acta Neuropathol. 2011;122 (1 ):1–9.21656168
39 Attwell  D, Mishra  A, Hall  CN, O'Farrell  FM, Dalkara  T. What is a pericyte?  J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2016;36 (2 ):451–455.26661200
40 Shuaib  A, Xu  K, Crain  B, et al  Assessment of damage from implantation of microdialysis probes in the rat hippocampus with silver degeneration staining. Neurosci Lett. 1990;112 (2–3 ):149–154.1694285
41 Pfluger  P, Pinnell  RC, Martini  N, Hofmann  UG. Chronically implanted microelectrodes cause c-fos expression along their trajectory. Front Neurosci. 2019;13 :1367.31998057
42 Herrera  DG, Robertson  HA. Application of potassium chloride to the brain surface induces the c-fos proto-oncogene: Reversal by MK-801. Brain Res. 1990;510 (1 ):166–170.2157525
43 Faden  AI, Demediuk  P, Panter  SS, Vink  R. The role of excitatory amino acids and NMDA receptors in traumatic brain injury. Science. 1989;244 (4906 ):798–800.2567056
44 Sharp  JW, Sagar  SM, Hisanaga  K, Jasper  P, Sharp  FR. The NMDA receptor mediates cortical induction of fos and fos-related antigens following cortical injury. Exp Neurol. 1990;109 (3 ):323–332.1698651
45 Biran  R, Martin  DC, Tresco  PA. Neuronal cell loss accompanies the brain tissue response to chronically implanted silicon microelectrode arrays. Exp Neurol. 2005;195 (1 ):115–126.16045910
46 Buffo  A, Rite  I, Tripathi  P, et al  Origin and progeny of reactive gliosis: A source of multipotent cells in the injured brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105 (9 ):3581–3586.18299565
47 Okada  S, Nakamura  M, Katoh  H, et al  Conditional ablation of Stat3 or Socs3 discloses a dual role for reactive astrocytes after spinal cord injury. Nat Med. 2006;12 (7 ):829–834.16783372
48 Sofroniew  MV . Reactive astrocytes in neural repair and protection. Neuroscientist. 2005;11 (5 ):400–407.16151042
49 Vedam-Mai  V, van Battum  EY, Kamphuis  W, et al  Deep brain stimulation and the role of astrocytes. Mol Psychiatry. 2012;17 (2 ):124–131.115.21625231
50 Sofroniew  MV, Vinters  HV. Astrocytes: Biology and pathology. Acta Neuropathol. 2010;119 (1 ):7–35.20012068
51 Szarowski  DH, Andersen  MD, Retterer  S, et al  Brain responses to micro-machined silicon devices. Brain Res. 2003;983 (1–2 ):23–35.12914963
52 Alonso  G . NG2 proteoglycan-expressing cells of the adult rat brain: Possible involvement in the formation of glial scar astrocytes following stab wound. Glia. 2005;49 (3 ):318–338.15494983
53 Magnus  T, Coksaygan  T, Korn  T, et al  Evidence that nucleocytoplasmic Olig2 translocation mediates brain-injury-induced differentiation of glial precursors to astrocytes. J Neurosci Res. 2007;85 (10 ):2126–2137.17510983
54 Stichel  CC, Muller  HW. The CNS lesion scar: New vistas on an old regeneration barrier. Cell Tissue Res. 1998;294 (1 ):1–9.9724451
55 Spataro  L, Dilgen  J, Retterer  S, et al  Dexamethasone treatment reduces astroglia responses to inserted neuroprosthetic devices in rat neocortex. Exp Neurol. 2005;194 (2 ):289–300.16022859
56 Hamberger  A, Nystrom  B. Extra- and intracellular amino acids in the hippocampus during development of hepatic encephalopathy. Neurochem Res. 1984;9 (9 ):1181–1192.6504234
57 Song  S, Song  S, Cao  C, et al  Hippocampal neurogenesis and the brain repair response to brief stereotaxic insertion of a microneedle. Stem Cells Int. 2013;2013 :205878.23554817
58 Turner  JN, Shain  W, Szarowski  DH, et al  Cerebral astrocyte response to micromachined silicon implants. Exp Neurol. 1999;156 (1 ):33–49.10192775
59 Haberler  C, Alesch  F, Mazal  PR, et al  No tissue damage by chronic deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease. Ann Neurol. 2000;48 (3 ):372–376.10976644
60 Kozai  TD, Langhals  NB, Patel  PR, et al  Ultrasmall implantable composite microelectrodes with bioactive surfaces for chronic neural interfaces. Nat Mater. 2012;11 (12 ):1065–1073.23142839
61 Burda  JE, Sofroniew  MV. Reactive gliosis and the multicellular response to CNS damage and disease. Neuron. 2014;81 (2 ):229–248.24462092
62 Stock  G, Sturm  V, Schmitt  HP, Schlor  KH. The influence of chronic deep brain stimulation on excitability and morphology of the stimulated tissue. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1979;47 (1–2 ):123–129.112839
63 Vedam-Mai  V, Baradaran-Shoraka  M, Reynolds  BA, Okun  MS. Tissue response to deep brain stimulation and microlesion: A comparative study. Neuromodulation. 2016;19 (5 ):451–458.27018335
64 McCreery  D, Pikov  V, Troyk  PR. Neuronal loss due to prolonged controlled-current stimulation with chronically implanted microelectrodes in the cat cerebral cortex. J Neural Eng. 2010;7 (3 ):036005.20460692
65 Griffith  RW, Humphrey  DR. Long-term gliosis around chronically implanted platinum electrodes in the rhesus macaque motor cortex. Neurosci Lett. 2006;406 (1–2 ):81–86.16905255
66 Araque  A, Parpura  V, Sanzgiri  RP, Haydon  PG. Tripartite synapses: Glia, the unacknowledged partner. Trends Neurosci. 1999;22 (5 ):208–215.10322493
67 Anderson  CM, Swanson  RA. Astrocyte glutamate transport: Review of properties, regulation, and physiological functions. Glia. Oct 2000;32 (1 ):1–14.10975906
68 Ventura  R, Harris  KM. Three-dimensional relationships between hippocampal synapses and astrocytes. J Neurosci. 1999;19 (16 ):6897–6906.10436047
69 Volterra  A, Meldolesi  J. Astrocytes, from brain glue to communication elements: The revolution continues. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2005;6 (8 ):626–640.16025096
70 Wilhelmsson  U, Bushong  EA, Price  DL, et al  Redefining the concept of reactive astrocytes as cells that remain within their unique domains upon reaction to injury. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103 (46 ):17513–17518.17090684
71 Pekny  M, Nilsson  M. Astrocyte activation and reactive gliosis. Glia. 2005;50 (4 ):427–434.15846805
72 Sakakibara  S, Nakamura  Y, Yoshida  T, et al  RNA-binding protein Musashi family: Roles for CNS stem cells and a subpopulation of ependymal cells revealed by targeted disruption and antisense ablation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002;99 (23 ):15194–15199.12407178
73 Liddelow  SA, Guttenplan  KA, Clarke  LE, et al  Neurotoxic reactive astrocytes are induced by activated microglia. Nature. 2017;541 (7638 ):481–487.28099414
74 Jang  E, Kim  JH, Lee  S, et al  Phenotypic polarization of activated astrocytes: The critical role of lipocalin-2 in the classical inflammatory activation of astrocytes. J Immunol. 2013;191 (10 ):5204–5219.24089194
75 Colombo  E, Farina  C. Astrocytes: Key regulators of neuroinflammation. Trends Immunol. 2016;37 (9 ):608–620.27443914
76 Kreutzberg  GW . Microglia: A sensor for pathological events in the CNS. Trends Neurosci. 1996;19 (8 ):312–318.8843599
77 Soulet  D, Rivest  S. Microglia. Curr Biol. 2008;18 (12 ):R506–R508.18579087
78 Hanisch  UK, Kettenmann  H. Microglia: Active sensor and versatile effector cells in the normal and pathologic brain. Nat Neurosci. 2007;10 (11 ):1387–1394.17965659
79 Polikov  VS, Tresco  PA, Reichert  WM. Response of brain tissue to chronically implanted neural electrodes. J Neurosci Methods. 2005;148 (1 ):1–18.16198003
80 Kim  SU, de Vellis  J. Microglia in health and disease. J Neurosci Res. 2005;81 (3 ):302–313.15954124
81 Farber  K, Kettenmann  H. Physiology of microglial cells. Brain Res Brain Res Rev. 2005;48 (2 ):133–143.15850652
82 Hirshler  YK, Polat  U, Biegon  A. Intracranial electrode implantation produces regional neuroinflammation and memory deficits in rats. Exp Neurol.  2010;222 (1 ):42–50.20026042
83 Babcock  AA, Kuziel  WA, Rivest  S, Owens  T. Chemokine expression by glial cells directs leukocytes to sites of axonal injury in the CNS. J Neurosci. 2003;23 (21 ):7922–7930.12944523
84 Chabot  S, Williams  G, Yong  VW. Microglial production of TNF-alpha is induced by activated T lymphocytes. Involvement of VLA-4 and inhibition by interferonbeta-1b. J Clin Invest. 1997;100 (3 ):604–612.9239408
85 Nishiyama  A, Suzuki  R, Zhu  X. NG2 cells (polydendrocytes) in brain physiology and repair. Front Neurosci. 2014;8 :133.25018689
86 Nishiyama  A, Komitova  M, Suzuki  R, Zhu  X. Polydendrocytes (NG2 cells): Multifunctional cells with lineage plasticity. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2009;10 (1 ):9–22.19096367
87 Peters  A . A fourth type of neuroglial cell in the adult central nervous system. J Neurocytol. 2004;33 (3 ):345–357.15475689
88 Dawson  MR, Polito  A, Levine  JM, Reynolds  R. NG2-expressing glial progenitor cells: An abundant and widespread population of cycling cells in the adult rat CNS. Mol Cell Neurosci. 2003;24 (2 ):476–488.14572468
89 Schafer  MKE, Tegeder  I. NG2/CSPG4 and progranulin in the posttraumatic glial scar. Matrix Biol. 2018;68–69 :571–588.
90 Tan  AM, Zhang  W, Levine  JM. NG2: A component of the glial scar that inhibits axon growth. J Anat. Dec 2005;207 (6 ):717–725.16367799
91 Rivera  A, De La Rocha  IC, Rebekah  N, Butt  AM. Pathophysiology of NG2-glia: A ‘Chicken and Egg’ scenario of altered neurotransmission and disruption of NG2-glial cell function. OM&P. 2016;2 (1 ):27–33.
92 Bush  TG, Puvanachandra  N, Horner  CH, et al  Leukocyte infiltration, neuronal degeneration, and neurite outgrowth after ablation of scar-forming, reactive astrocytes in adult transgenic mice. Neuron. 1999;23 (2 ):297–308.10399936
93 Faulkner  JR, Herrmann  JE, Woo  MJ, Tansey  KE, Doan  NB, Sofroniew  MV.  Reactive astrocytes protect tissue and preserve function after spinal cord injury. J Neurosci. 2004;24 (9 ):2143–2155.14999065
94 Seifert  G, Schilling  K, Steinhauser  C. Astrocyte dysfunction in neurological disorders: A molecular perspective. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2006;7 (3 ):194–206.16495941
95 Potter  KA, Buck  AC, Self  WK, Capadona  JR. Stab injury and device implantation within the brain results in inversely multiphasic neuroinflammatory and neurodegenerative responses. J Neural Eng. 2012;9 (4 ):046020.22832283
96 Edell  DJ, Toi  VV, McNeil  VM, Clark  LD. Factors influencing the biocompatibility of insertable silicon microshafts in cerebral cortex. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1992;39 (6 ):635–643.1601445
97 McConnell  GC, Butera  RJ, Bellamkonda  RV. Bioimpedance modeling to monitor astrocytic response to chronically implanted electrodes. J Neural Eng. 2009;6 (5 ):055005.19721187
98 Mohammed  M, Ivica  N, Bjartmarz  H, et al  Microelectrode clusters enable therapeutic deep brain stimulation without noticeable side-effects in a rodent model of Parkinson’s disease. J Neurosci Methods. 2022;365 :109399.34695455
99 Ortinski  PI, Dong  J, Mungenast  A, et al  Selective induction of astrocytic gliosis generates deficits in neuronal inhibition. Nat Neurosci. 2010;13 (5 ):584–591.20418874
100 Hamilton  NB, Attwell  D. Do astrocytes really exocytose neurotransmitters?  Nat Rev Neurosci. 2010;11 (4 ):227–238.20300101
101 Agulhon  C, Petravicz  J, McMullen  AB, et al  What is the role of astrocyte calcium in neurophysiology?  Neuron. 2008;59 (6 ):932–946.18817732
102 Perea  G, Navarrete  M, Araque  A. Tripartite synapses: Astrocytes process and control synaptic information. Trends Neurosci. 2009;32 (8 ):421–431.19615761
103 Casquero-Veiga  M, Garcia-Garcia  D, Desco  M, Soto-Montenegro  ML. Understanding deep brain stimulation: In vivo metabolic consequences of the electrode insertional effect. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018 :8560232.30417016
104 Perez-Caballero  L, Soto-Montenegro  ML, Hidalgo-Figueroa  M, Mico  JA, Desco  M, Berrocoso  E. Deep brain stimulation electrode insertion and depression: Patterns of activity and modulation by analgesics. Brain Stimul. 2018;11 (6 ):1348–1355.30001902
105 Chakravarty  MM, Hamani  C, Martinez-Canabal  A, et al  Deep brain stimulation of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex causes reorganization of neuronal processes and vasculature. Neuroimage. 2016;125 :422–427.26525655
106 Barrese  JC, Aceros  J, Donoghue  JP. Scanning electron microscopy of chronically implanted intracortical microelectrode arrays in non-human primates. J Neural Eng. 2016;13 (2 ):026003.26824680
107 Budoff  SA, Yano  KM, de Mesquita  FC, et al  Astrocytic response to acutely- and chronically-implanted microelectrode arrays in the marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) brain. Brain Sci. 2019;9 (2 ):124–131.31142050
108 Vedam-Mai  V, Rodgers  C, Gureck  A, et al  Deep brain stimulation associated gliosis: A post-mortem study. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2018;54 :51–55.29653910
109 Vedam-Mai  V, Krock  N, Ullman  M, et al  The national DBS brain tissue network pilot study: Need for more tissue and more standardization. Cell Tissue Bank. 2011;12 (3 ):219–231.20589432
110 van Kuyck  K, Welkenhuysen  M, Arckens  L, Sciot  R, Nuttin  B. Histological alterations induced by electrode implantation and electrical stimulation in the human brain: A review. Neuromodulation. 2007;10 (3 ):244–261.22150838
111 DiLorenzo  DJ, Jankovic  J, Simpson  RK, Takei  H, Powell  SZ. Long-term deep brain stimulation for essential tremor: 12-year clinicopathologic follow-up. Mov Disord. 2010;25 (2 ):232–238.20063387
112 Caparros-Lefebvre  D, Ruchoux  MM, Blond  S, Petit  H, Percheron  G. Long-term thalamic stimulation in Parkinson’s disease: Postmortem anatomoclinical study. Neurology. 1994;44 (10 ):1856–1860.7936236
113 Henderson  JM, O'Sullivan  DJ, Pell  M, et al  Lesion of thalamic centromedian–parafascicular complex after chronic deep brain stimulation. Neurology. 2001;56 (11 ):1576–1579.11402120
114 Henderson  JM, Pell  M, Sullivan  O, et al  Postmortem analysis of bilateral subthalamic electrode implants in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord. 2002;17 (1 ):133–137.11835450
115 Sun  DA, Yu  H, Spooner  J, et al  Postmortem analysis following 71 months of deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus for Parkinson disease. J Neurosurg. 2008;109 (2 ):325–329.18671648
116 Jarraya  B, Bonnet  AM, Duyckaerts  C, et al  Parkinson’s disease, subthalamic stimulation, and selection of candidates: A pathological study. Mov Disord. 2003;18 (12 ):1517–1520.14673889
117 Giordano  F, Caporalini  C, Peraio  S, et al  Post-mortem histopathology of a pediatric brain after bilateral DBS of GPI for status dystonicus: Case report and review of the literature. Childs Nerv Syst. 2020;36 (9 ):1845–1851.32613424
118 Pilitsis  JG, Chu  Y, Kordower  J, Bergen  DC, Cochran  EJ, Bakay  RA. Postmortem study of deep brain stimulation of the anterior thalamus: Case report. Neurosurgery. 2008;62 (2 ):E530–E532. discussion E532.18382294
119 DiLorenzo  DJ, Jankovic  J, Simpson  RK, Takei  H, Powell  SZ. Neurohistopathological findings at the electrode-tissue interface in long-term deep brain stimulation: Systematic literature review, case report, and assessment of stimulation threshold safety. Neuromodulation. 2014;17 (5 ):405–418. discussion 418.24947418
120 Henderson  J, Rodriguez  M, O'Sullivan  D, et al  Partial lesion of thalamic ventral intermediate nucleus after chronic high-frequency stimulation. Mov Disord. 2004; 19 (6 ):709–711.15197715
121 Kronenbuerger  M, Nolte  KW, Coenen  VA, Burgunder  JM, Krauss  JK, Weis  J. Brain alterations with deep brain stimulation: New insight from a neuropathological case series. Mov Disord. 2015;30 (8 ):1125–1130.26011773
122 Moss  J, Ryder  T, Aziz  TZ, Graeber  MB, Bain  PG. Electron microscopy of tissue adherent to explanted electrodes in dystonia and Parkinson’s disease. Brain. 2004;127 (Pt 12 ):2755–2763.15329356
123 McCreery  DB, Agnew  WF, Yuen  TG, Bullara  L. Charge density and charge per phase as cofactors in neural injury induced by electrical stimulation. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1990;37 (10 ):996–1001.2249872
124 McCreery  DB, Agnew  WF, Yuen  TG, Bullara  LA. Comparison of neural damage induced by electrical stimulation with faradaic and capacitor electrodes. Ann Biomed Eng. 1988;16 (5 ):463–481.3189974
125 Riedy  LW, Walter  JS. Effects of low charge injection densities on corrosion responses of pulsed 316LVM stainless steel electrodes. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1996;43 (6 ):660–663.8987272
126 Evers  J, Lowery  M. The active electrode in the living brain: The response of the brain parenchyma to chronically implanted deep brain stimulation electrodes. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown). 2021;20 (2 ):131–140.33074305
127 De Vloo  P, Thal  D, van Kuyck  K, Nuttin  B.  Histopathology after microelectrode recording and twelve years of deep brain stimulation. Brain Stimul. 2018;11 (5 ):1183–1186.29776858
128 Hamani  C, Nobrega  JN. Preclinical studies modeling deep brain stimulation for depression. Biol Psychiatry. 2012;72 (11 ):916–923.22748616
129 Hamani  C, Temel  Y. Deep brain stimulation for psychiatric disease: Contributions and validity of animal models. Sci Transl Med. 2012;4 (142 ):142rv8.
130 Hamani  C, Nobrega  JN. Deep brain stimulation in clinical trials and animal models of depression. Eur J Neurosci. 2010;32 (7 ):1109–1117.21039950
131 Mayberg  HS, Lozano  AM, Voon  V, et al  Deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant depression. Neuron. 2005;45 (5 ):651–660.15748841
132 Hamani  C, Mayberg  H, Snyder  B, Giacobbe  P, Kennedy  S, Lozano  AM. Deep brain stimulation of the subcallosal cingulate gyrus for depression: Anatomical location of active contacts in clinical responders and a suggested guideline for targeting. J Neurosurg. 2009;111 (6 ):1209–1215.19480538
133 Perez-Caballero  L, Perez-Egea  R, Romero-Grimaldi  C, et al  Early responses to deep brain stimulation in depression are modulated by anti-inflammatory drugs. Mol Psychiatry. 2014;19 (5 ):607–614.23711979
134 Hamani  C, Diwan  M, Isabella  S, Lozano  AM, Nobrega  JN. Effects of different stimulation parameters on the antidepressant-like response of medial prefrontal cortex deep brain stimulation in rats. J Psychiatr Res. 2010;44 (11 ):683–687.20096858
135 Hamani  C, Diwan  M, Macedo  CE, et al  Antidepressant-like effects of medial prefrontal cortex deep brain stimulation in rats. Biol Psychiatry. 2010;67 (2 ):117–124.19819426
136 Hamani  C, Machado  DC, Hipolide  DC, et al  Deep brain stimulation reverses anhedonic-like behavior in a chronic model of depression: Role of serotonin and brain derived neurotrophic factor. Biol Psychiatry. 2012;71 (1 ):30–35.22000731
137 Song  S, Kong  X, Sava  V, et al  Transient microneedle insertion into hippocampus triggers neurogenesis and decreases amyloid burden in a mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease. Cell Transplant. 2016;25 (10 ):1853–1861.26892497
138 Lee  JE, Jeong  DU, Lee  J, Chang  WS, Chang  JW. The effect of nucleus basalis magnocellularis deep brain stimulation on memory function in a rat model of dementia. BMC Neurol. 2016;16 :6.26757896
139 Krauss  JK, Lipsman  N, Aziz  T, et al  Technology of deep brain stimulation: Current status and future directions. Nat Rev Neurol. 2021;17 (2 ):75–87.33244188
140 Hartmann  CJ, Fliegen  S, Groiss  SJ, Wojtecki  L, Schnitzler  A. An update on best practice of deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2019;12 :1756286419838096.30944587
141 Desbonnet  L, Temel  Y, Visser-Vandewalle  V, Blokland  A, Hornikx  V, Steinbusch  HW. Premature responding following bilateral stimulation of the rat subthalamic nucleus is amplitude and frequency dependent. Brain Res. 2004;1008 (2 ):198–204.15145757
142 Pinheiro Campos  AC, Martinez  RCR, Auada  AVV, et al  Effect of subthalamic stimulation and electrode implantation in the striatal microenvironment in a Parkinson’s disease rat model. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23 (20 ):12116.36292973
143 Campos  ACP, Kikuchi  DS, Paschoa  AFN, et al  Unraveling the role of astrocytes in subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation in a Parkinson’s disease rat model. Cell Mol Neurobiol. 2020;40 (6 ):939–954.31939008
144 Fang  X, Sugiyama  K, Akamine  S, Namba  H. Improvements in motor behavioral tests during deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus in rats with different degrees of unilateral parkinsonism. Brain Res. 2006;1120 (1 ):202–210.16997286
145 Gut  NK, Winn  P. Deep brain stimulation of different pedunculopontine targets in a novel rodent model of parkinsonism. J Neurosci. 2015;35 (12 ):4792–4803.25810510
146 Chang  SY, Shon  YM, Agnesi  F, Lee  KH. Microthalamotomy effect during deep brain stimulation: Potential involvement of adenosine and glutamate efflux. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2009;2009 :3294–3297.19964296
147 Orlowski  D, Michalis  A, Glud  AN, et al  Brain tissue reaction to deep brain stimulation—A longitudinal study of DBS in the Goettingen minipig. Neuromodulation. 2017;20 (5 ):417–423.28220987
148 Kozlov  AS, Angulo  MC, Audinat  E, Charpak  S. Target cell-specific modulation of neuronal activity by astrocytes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103 (26 ):10058–10063.16782808
149 Newman  EA, Zahs  KR.  Modulation of neuronal activity by glial cells in the retina. J Neurosci. 1998;18 (11 ):4022–4028.9592083
150 Warner-Schmidt  JL, Schmidt  EF, Marshall  JJ, et al  Cholinergic interneurons in the nucleus accumbens regulate depression-like behavior. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109 (28 ):11360–11365.22733786
151 Schmidt  EF, Warner-Schmidt  JL, Otopalik  BG, Pickett  SB, Greengard  P, Heintz  N. Identification of the cortical neurons that mediate antidepressant responses. Cell. 2012;149 (5 ):1152–1163.22632977
152 Oh  YS, Gao  P, Lee  KW, et al  SMARCA3, a chromatin-remodeling factor, is required for p11-dependent antidepressant action. Cell. 2013;152 (4 ):831–843.23415230
153 Egeland  M, Warner-Schmidt  J, Greengard  P, Svenningsson  P. Co-expression of serotonin 5-HT(1B) and 5-HT(4) receptors in p11 containing cells in cerebral cortex, hippocampus, caudate-putamen and cerebellum. Neuropharmacology. 2011;61 (3 ):442–450.21300076
154 Warner-Schmidt  JL, Flajolet  M, Maller  A, et al  Role of p11 in cellular and behavioral effects of 5-HT4 receptor stimulation. J Neurosci. 2009;29 (6 ):1937–1946.19211900
155 Anisman  H, Du  L, Palkovits  M, et al  Serotonin receptor subtype and p11 mRNA expression in stress-relevant brain regions of suicide and control subjects. J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2008;33 (2 ):131–141.18330459
156 Warner-Schmidt  JL, Chen  EY, Zhang  X, et al  A role for p11 in the antidepressant action of brain-derived neurotrophic factor. Biol Psychiatry. 2010;68 (6 ):528–535.20591415
157 Svenningsson  P, Chergui  K, Rachleff  I, et al  Alterations in 5-HT1B receptor function by p11 in depression-like states. Science. 2006;311 (5757 ):77–80.16400147
158 Amorim  BO, Covolan  L, Ferreira  E, et al  Deep brain stimulation induces antiapoptotic and anti-inflammatory effects in epileptic rats. J Neuroinflammation. 2015;12 :162.26337974
159 Schuhmann  MK, Stoll  G, Bohr  A, Volkmann  J, Fluri  F. Electrical stimulation of the mesencephalic locomotor region attenuates neuronal loss and cytokine expression in the perifocal region of photothrombotic stroke in rats. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20 (9 ):2341.31083528
160 Leplus  A, Lauritzen  I, Melon  C, Kerkerian-Le Goff  L, Fontaine  D, Checler  F. Chronic fornix deep brain stimulation in a transgenic Alzheimer’s rat model reduces amyloid burden, inflammation, and neuronal loss. Brain Struct Funct. 2019;224 (1 ):363–372.30341742
161 Chan  HH, Wathen  CA, Mathews  ND, et al  Lateral cerebellar nucleus stimulation promotes motor recovery and suppresses neuroinflammation in a fluid percussion injury rodent model. Brain Stimul. 2018;11 (6 ):1356–1367.30061053
162 Sitburana  O, Almaguer  M, Ondo  WG. A pilot study: Microlesion effects and tremor outcome in the ventrointermediate deep brain stimulation (VIM-DBS). Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2010;112 (2 ):106–109.19926209
163 Morishita  T, Foote  KD, Wu  SS, et al  Brain penetration effects of microelectrodes and deep brain stimulation leads in ventral intermediate nucleus stimulation for essential tremor. J Neurosurg. 2010;112 (3 ):491–496.19663554
164 Wagle Shukla  A, Okun  MS. Microlesion effects, suboptimal lead placement and disease progression are critical determinants for DBS tolerance in essential tremor. Clin Neurophysiol. 2018;129 (10 ):2215–2216.30131211
165 Velasco  F, Jimenez  F, Perez  ML, et al  Electrical stimulation of the prelemniscal radiation in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease: An old target revised with new techniques. Neurosurgery. 2001;49 (2 ):293–306. discussion 306–8.11504105
166 Bangash  OK, Dissanayake  AS, Knight  S, et al  Modulation of saccades in humans by electrical stimulation of the posterior subthalamic area. J Neurosurg. 2019;132 (4 ):1218–1226.30875687
167 Marsden  JF, Ashby  P, Limousin-Dowsey  P, Rothwell  JC, Brown  P. Coherence between cerebellar thalamus, cortex and muscle in man: Cerebellar thalamus interactions. Brain. 2000;123 (Pt 7 ):1459–1470.10869057
168 Bennet  KE, Tomshine  JR, Min  HK, et al  A diamond-based electrode for detection of neurochemicals in the human brain. Front Hum Neurosci. 2016;10 :102.27014033
169 Chang  SY, Kim  I, Marsh  MP, et al  Wireless fast-scan cyclic voltammetry to monitor adenosine in patients with essential tremor during deep brain stimulation. Mayo Clin Proc. 2012;87 (8 ):760–765.22809886
170 Kumar  R, Lozano  AM, Kim  YJ, et al  Double-blind evaluation of subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation in advanced Parkinson’s disease. Neurology. 1998;51 (3 ):850–855.9748038
171 Derrey  S, Lefaucheur  R, Chastan  N, et al  Alleviation of off-period dystonia in Parkinson disease by a microlesion following subthalamic implantation. J Neurosurg. 2010;112 (6 ):1263–1266.19877801
172 Aygun  D, Dere  UA, Yildiz  O, Temel  Y, Kocabicak  E. Characterizing the intraoperative microelectrode recording-induced microlesion effect on motor symptoms in patients with Parkinson’s disease undergoing deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus. Turk Neurosurg. 2019;29 (3 ):430–433.30649828
173 Jech  R, Mueller  K, Urgosik  D, et al  The subthalamic microlesion story in Parkinson’s disease: Electrode insertion-related motor improvement with relative cortico-subcortical hypoactivation in fMRI. PLoS One. 2012;7 (11 ):e49056.23145068
174 Luo  B, Lu  Y, Qiu  C, et al  Altered spontaneous neural activity and functional connectivity in Parkinson’s disease with subthalamic microlesion. Front Neurosci. 2021;15 :699010.34354566
175 Mann  JM, Foote  KD, Garvan  CW, et al  Brain penetration effects of microelectrodes and DBS leads in STN or GPi. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2009;80 (7 ):794–797.19237386
176 Soler-Rico  M, Peeters  JB, Joris  V, Delavallee  M, Duprez  T, Raftopoulos  C. MRI-guided DBS of STN under general anesthesia for Parkinson’s disease: Results and microlesion effect analysis. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2022;164 (9 ):2279–2286.35841433
177 Lange  SF, Kremer  NI, van Laar  T, et al  The intraoperative microlesion effect positively correlates with the short-term clinical effect of deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease. Neuromodulation. 2023;26 (2 ):459–465.34494335
178 Singh  A, Kammermeier  S, Mehrkens  JH, Botzel  K. Movement kinematic after deep brain stimulation associated microlesions. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2012;83 (10 ):1022–1026.22869922
179 Avecillas-Chasin  JM, Jimenez-Shahed  J, Miravite  J, Bressman  S, Kopell  BH. Deep brain stimulation of the pallidofugal pathways to rescue severe life-threatening dyskinesias after STN-DBS lead implantation. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. 2022;100 (2 ):95–98.34649247
180 Rughani  A, Schwalb  JM, Sidiropoulos  C, et al  Congress of neurological surgeons systematic review and evidence-based guideline on subthalamic nucleus and globus pallidus internus deep brain stimulation for the treatment of patients with Parkinson’s disease: Executive summary. Neurosurgery. 2018;82 (6 ):753–756.29538685
181 Borden  A, Wallon  D, Lefaucheur  R, et al  Does early verbal fluency decline after STN implantation predict long-term cognitive outcome after STN-DBS in Parkinson’s disease?  J Neurol Sci. 2014;346 (1–2 ):299–302.25125047
182 Costentin  G, Derrey  S, Gerardin  E, et al  White matter tracts lesions and decline of verbal fluency after deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease. Hum Brain Mapp. 2019;40 (9 ):2561–2570.30779251
183 Lefaucheur  R, Derrey  S, Martinaud  O, et al  Early verbal fluency decline after STN implantation: Is it a cognitive microlesion effect?  J Neurol Sci. 2012;321 (1–2 ):96–99.22846795
184 Le Goff  F, Derrey  S, Lefaucheur  R, et al  Decline in verbal fluency after subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease: A microlesion effect of the electrode trajectory?  J Parkinsons Dis. 2015;5 (1 ):95–104.25374271
185 Aiello  M, Eleopra  R, Lettieri  C, et al  Emotion recognition in Parkinson’s disease after subthalamic deep brain stimulation: Differential effects of microlesion and STN stimulation. Cortex. 2014;51 :35–45.24342106
186 Antoniades  CA, Buttery  P, FitzGerald  JJ, Barker  RA, Carpenter  RH, Watts  C. Deep brain stimulation: Eye movements reveal anomalous effects of electrode placement and stimulation. PLoS One. 2012;7 (3 ):e32830.22427894
187 Piette  T, Mescola  P, Uytdenhoef  P, et al  A unique episode of REM sleep behavior disorder triggered during surgery for Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Sci. 2007;253 (1–2 ):73–76.17196620
188 Wang  Y, Li  P, Gong  F, Gao  Y, Xu  YY, Wang  W. Micro lesion effect of the globus pallidus internus with deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease patients. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2017;159 (9 ):1727–1731.28755172
189 Carrillo-Ruiz  JD, Velasco  F, Jimenez  F, et al  Bilateral electrical stimulation of prelemniscal radiations in the treatment of advanced Parkinson’s disease. Neurosurgery. 2008;62 (2 ):347–357. discussion 357–9.18382312
190 Granziera  C, Pollo  C, Russmann  H, et al  Sub-acute delayed failure of subthalamic DBS in Parkinson’s disease: The role of micro-lesion effect. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2008;14 (2 ):109–113.18065255
191 Chartrain  AG, Awad  AJ, Rasouli  JJ, Rothrock  RJ, Kopell  BH. Deep brain stimulation of the ventralis intermedius nucleus for the treatment of essential tremor. Neurosurg Focus. 2017;42 (VideoSuppl2):V3.
192 Campbell  BA, Machado  AG, Baker  KB. Electrophysiologic mapping for deep brain stimulation for movement disorders. Handb Clin Neurol. 2019;160 :345–355.31277859
193 Gross  RE, Krack  P, Rodriguez-Oroz  MC, Rezai  AR, Benabid  AL. Electrophysiological mapping for the implantation of deep brain stimulators for Parkinson’s disease and tremor. Mov Disord. 2006;21 (Suppl 14 ):S259–S283.16810720
194 Andrade-Souza  YM, Schwalb  JM, Hamani  C, Hoque  T, Saint-Cyr  J, Lozano  AM. Comparison of 2-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging and 3-planar reconstruction methods for targeting the subthalamic nucleus in Parkinson disease. Surg Neurol. 2005;63 (4 ):357–362.15808723
195 Andrews  JC, Roy  FD, Ba  F, Sankar  T. Intraoperative changes in the H-reflex pathway during deep brain stimulation surgery for Parkinson’s disease: A potential biomarker for optimal electrode placement. Brain Stimul. 2020;13 (6 ):1765–1773.33035725
196 Pourfar  M, Tang  C, Lin  T, Dhawan  V, Kaplitt  MG, Eidelberg  D. Assessing the microlesion effect of subthalamic deep brain stimulation surgery with FDG PET. J Neurosurg. 2009;110 (6 ):1278–1282.19301972
197 Trost  M, Su  S, Su  P, et al  Network modulation by the subthalamic nucleus in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. Neuroimage. 2006;31 (1 ):301–307.16466936
198 Asanuma  K, Tang  C, Ma  Y, et al  Network modulation in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. Brain. 2006;129 (Pt 10 ):2667–2678.16844713
199 Holiga  S, Mueller  K, Moller  HE, et al  Resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging of the subthalamic microlesion and stimulation effects in Parkinson’s disease: Indications of a principal role of the brainstem. Neuroimage Clin. 2015;9 :264–274.26509113
200 Luo  B, Lu  Y, Qiu  C, et al  Altered regional homogeneity and functional connectivity during microlesion period after deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsons Dis. 2021;2021 :2711365.34512944
201 Liu  J, Ding  H, Xu  K, et al  Micro lesion effect of pallidal deep–brain stimulation for meige syndrome. Sci Rep. 2022;12 (1 ):19980.36411289
202 Rozanski  VE, Lieb  M, Vollmar  C, Mehrkens  JH, Botzel  K. Evidence of a non-motor microlesion effect following deep brain surgery: A case report. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2012;154 (5 ):835–838.22281733
203 Cersosimo  MG, Raina  GB, Piedimonte  F, Antico  J, Graff  P, Micheli  FE. Pallidal surgery for the treatment of primary generalized dystonia: Long-term follow-up. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2008;110 (2 ):145–150.18023526
204 Al-Otaibi  FA, Hamani  C, Lozano  AM. Neuromodulation in epilepsy. Neurosurgery. 2011;69 (4 ):957–979; discussion 979 21716154
205 Lim  SN, Lee  ST, Tsai  YT, et al  Electrical stimulation of the anterior nucleus of the thalamus for intractable epilepsy: A long-term follow-up study. Epilepsia. 2007;48 (2 ):342–347.17295629
206 Hodaie  M, Wennberg  RA, Dostrovsky  JO, Lozano  AM. Chronic anterior thalamus stimulation for intractable epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2002;43 (6 ):603–608.12060019
207 Krishna  V, King  NK, Sammartino  F, et al  Anterior nucleus deep brain stimulation for refractory epilepsy: Insights into patterns of seizure control and efficacious target. Neurosurgery. 2016;78 (6 ):802–811.26813858
208 Andrade  DM, Zumsteg  D, Hamani  C, et al  Long-term follow-up of patients with thalamic deep brain stimulation for epilepsy. Neurology. 2006;66 (10 ):1571–1573.16540602
209 Cukiert  A, Cukiert  CM, Burattini  JA, Mariani  PP. Seizure outcome during bilateral, continuous, thalamic centromedian nuclei deep brain stimulation in patients with generalized epilepsy: A prospective, open-label study. Seizure. 2020;81 :304–309.32947179
210 Vonck  K, Boon  P, Goossens  L, et al  Neurostimulation for refractory epilepsy. Acta Neurol Belg. 2003;103 (4 ):213–217.15008506
211 Cukiert  A, Cukiert  CM, Burattini  JA, Mariani  PP, Bezerra  DF. Seizure outcome after hippocampal deep brain stimulation in patients with refractory temporal lobe epilepsy: A prospective, controlled, randomized, double-blind study. Epilepsia. 2017;58 (10 ):1728–1733.28744855
212 Knotkova  H, Hamani  C, Sivanesan  E, et al  Neuromodulation for chronic pain. Lancet. 2021;397 (10289 ):2111–2124.34062145
213 Levine  AB, MacDougall  KW. New-onset stutter after electrode insertion in the ventrocaudalis nucleus for face pain. World Neurosurg. 2016;90 :703 e7–703 e10.
214 Fontaine  D, Lazorthes  Y, Mertens  P, et al  Safety and efficacy of deep brain stimulation in refractory cluster headache: A randomized placebo-controlled double-blind trial followed by a 1-year open extension. J Headache Pain. 2010;11 (1 ):23–31.19936616
215 Akram  H, Miller  S, Lagrata  S, et al  Ventral tegmental area deep brain stimulation for refractory chronic cluster headache. Neurology. 2016;86 (18 ):1676–1682.27029635
216 Miller  S, Akram  H, Lagrata  S, Hariz  M, Zrinzo  L, Matharu  M. Ventral tegmental area deep brain stimulation in refractory short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks. Brain. 2016;139 (Pt 10 ):2631–2640.27524793
217 Lefaucheur  JP, Drouot  X, Cunin  P, et al  Motor cortex stimulation for the treatment of refractory peripheral neuropathic pain. Brain. 2009;132 (Pt 6 ):1463–1471.19336459
218 Radic  JA, Beauprie  I, Chiasson  P, Kiss  ZH, Brownstone  RM. Motor cortex stimulation for neuropathic pain: A randomized cross-over trial. Can J Neurol Sci. 2015;42 (6 ):401–409.26324857
219 Hamani  C, Fonoff  ET, Parravano  DC, et al  Motor cortex stimulation for chronic neuropathic pain: Results of a double-blind randomized study. Brain. 2021;144 (10 ):2994–3004.34373901
220 Schruers  K, Baldi  S, van den Heuvel  T, et al  The effects of deep-brain non-stimulation in severe obsessive-compulsive disorder: An individual patient data meta-analysis. Transl Psychiatry. 2019;9 (1 ):183.31383848
221 Hamani  C, Davidson  B, Corchs  F, et al  Deep brain stimulation of the subgenual cingulum and uncinate fasciculus for the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder. Sci Adv. 2022;8 (48 ):eadc9970.36459550
222 Mestre  TA, Lang  AE, Okun  MS. Factors influencing the outcome of deep brain stimulation: Placebo, nocebo, lessebo, and lesion effects. Mov Disord. 2016;31 (3 ):290–296.26952118
223 Okun  MS, Gallo  BV, Mandybur  G, et al  Subthalamic deep brain stimulation with a constant-current device in Parkinson’s disease: An open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 2012;11 (2 ):140–149.22239915
224 Fisher  R, Salanova  V, Witt  T, et al  Electrical stimulation of the anterior nucleus of thalamus for treatment of refractory epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2010;51 (5 ):899–908.20331461
225 Merkl  A, Aust  S, Schneider  GH, et al  Deep brain stimulation of the subcallosal cingulate gyrus in patients with treatment-resistant depression: A double-blinded randomized controlled study and long-term follow-up in eight patients. J Affect Disord. 2018;227 :521–529.29161674
226 Puigdemont  D, Perez-Egea  R, Portella  MJ, et al  Deep brain stimulation of the subcallosal cingulate gyrus: Further evidence in treatment-resistant major depression. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2012;15 (1 ):121–133.21777510
