1998;51;796-803 Neurology Kerstin D. Pfann, Richard D. Penn

1998;51;796-803 NeurologyKerstin D. Pfann, Richard D. Penn, Kathleen M. Shannon and Daniel M. Corcos

Pallidotomy and bradykinesia: Implications for basal ganglia function

This information is current as of May 7, 2010

http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/full/51/3/796the World Wide Web at:

The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is located on

reserved. Print ISSN: 0028-3878. Online ISSN: 1526-632X. 1951, it is now a weekly with 48 issues per year. Copyright © 1998 by AAN Enterprises, Inc. All rights

® is the official journal of the American Academy of Neurology. Published continuously sinceNeurology

by on May 7, 2010 www.neurology.orgDownloaded from

http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/full/51/3/796

http://www.neurology.org

27. Wechsler D. WAIS-R manual. New York The Psychological Corporation, 1981.

28. Spreen 0, Strauss E. A compendium of neuropsychological tests. New York Oxford University Press, 1991.

29. Golden CJ. Stroop color and word test. Chicago: Stoelling, 1978.

30. van de Loo L. Enkele beschouwingen over de Bourdon- Wiersma test. Tijdschr Psychol Nijmeegse Universiteit 1956; 2:33-46.

31. Wechsler D. Wechsler Memory Scale manual. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation, 1974.

32. Osterieth PA. Le test de copie d’une figure complexe. Arch

33. Deelman BG, Brouwer WH, van Zomeren AH. Functies- toornissen na trauma capitis. In: Jennekens-Schinkel A, e t al.,

Psycho1 1944;30:206-356.

eds. Neuropsychologie in Nederland. Deventer: Van Loghum, Slaterus, 1980.

34. Benton AL, Hamsher K, Varney NR, Spreen 0. Contributions to neuropsychological assessment. New York: Oxford Univer- sity Press, 1983.

35. Luteyn F. Een nieuwe verkorte GIT. Dutch J Psychol 1966;2:

36. van der Vlugt H. Lateralisaties van hersenfuncties: een neu- ropsychologisch onderzoek naar de relatie tussen hand- voorkeur en de relatie van de taalfunctie. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger, 1979.

37. OBrien PC. Procedures for comparing samples with multiple endpoints. Biometrics 1984;40:1079-1087.

38. Lauter J. Exact T and F tests for analyzing studies with multiple endpoints. Biometrics 1996;52:964-970.

675-682.

Pallidotomy and bradykinesia Implications for basal ganglia function

Kerstin D. Pfann, PhD; Richard D. Penn, MD; Kathleen M. Shannon, MD; and Daniel M. Corcos, PhD

Art ic le abstract-Background and Objective: The scientific rationale for pallidotomy as a treatment for PD is that the lesion will reduce excessive tonic inhibition of the thalamus, thereby allowing movement to proceed more normally. If true, then PD patients who move slowly while on medication should increase movement speed following pallidotomy. To test this we used a simple motor task to determine if pallidotomy leads to an improvement in “on” motor performance when those movements are impaired before surgery. Methods: Nine patients with PD performed elbow flexion movements “as fast as possible” while they were “on” before and 1 month after pallidotomy. Patients with mild PD and healthy control subjects were also tested. Results: The clinical effects of pallidotomy were typical of those found in other studies. “Off” Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale scores improved and dyskinesias were reduced. Although before surgery the patients were far slower while they were “on” than the groups of mild PD patients and healthy control subjects, there was no change in mean peak velocity while they were “on” after pallidotomy. There was no change in other mean “on” motor performance measures such as peak acceleration, peak deceleration, initiation time, and symmetry. There was a decrease in the variability of peak acceleration, symmetry, and initiation time. Conclusion: Despite the clinical efficacy of pallidotomy while patients were “off,” bradykinesia of elbow flexion movements while patients were “on” is not affected by pallidotomy. Therefore, we conclude that the bradykinesia observed in this experiment is due to a mechanism other than excessive tonic inhibition of the motor thalamus. Our results are consistent with the idea that pallidotomy reduces the noise from the abnormally functioning basal ganglia. NEUROLOGY 1998;51:796-803

The resurgence of posteroventral pallidotomy in the 1990s has been based on both research on the brain circuits thought to be involved in generating the symptoms of PD and clinical research. Animal research has led to insights providing a scientific framework from which to interpret and predict the effects of pallidotomy. We sought to examine the primary hypothesis providing the rationale for the use of pallidotomy-that excessive tonic inhibition of the thalamus from the overactive internal segment of the globus pallidus (GPi) is the primary mechanism of bradykinesia.

This hypothesis is based on research, primarily on monkeys rendered parkinsonian by the neurotoxin l-methyl-4-phenyl-l,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine (MPTP), that has led to the development of motor circuit representations of the imbalance in neural activity associated with PD (see DeLong, figure 1, p. 2821.l The basic motor circuit of a properly functioning basal ganglia2 consists of excitatory activation of the putamen by the cerebral cortex. The putamen inhibits the output structure directly, the internal segment of the GPi, and the substantia nigra pars reticulata (SNr). In contrast, the putamen increases

From the School of Kinesiology (M/C 194; Drs. Pfann and Corcos) and the Department of Psychology (Dr. Corcos), University of Illinois a t Chicago; and the Departments of Neurosurgery (Dr. Penn) and Neurological Sciences (Drs. Shannon and Corcos), Rush Medical College, Chicago, IL. Supported in part by the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke grants KO4-NS 01508 and RO1-NS 28127, and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases grant RO1-AR 33189. Received January 22, 1998. Accepted in final form May 16, 1998. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Kerstin Pfann, School of Kinesiology, University of Illinois at Chicago, 901 W. Roosevelt Road, Chicago, IL 60608-1516.

796 Copyright 0 1998 by the American Academy of Neurology



activity indirectly in the output structure (GPi/SNr) via the indirect pathway by inhibiting the external segment of the globus pallidus (GPe), which in turn inhibits the subthalamic nucleus, which excites the GPi and the SNr. The GPi and the SNr have an inhibitory effect on the thalamus, whereas the thalamus excites the motor areas of the cerebral cortex. In addition, output projections from the basal ganglia are sent to other motor-related areas such as the superior colliculus and the pedunculopontine nucle- US.^ In monkeys who received MPTP, the loss of dopamine from the substantia nigra pars compacta (SNc) is associated with a decrease in the putamen activity of the direct pathway and an increase in the putamen activity in the indirect pathway. Therefore, dopamine loss in both pathways is associated with an increase in GPi and SNr a ~ t i v i t y . ~ The resulting increased inhibition of the thalamus is thought to make movement difficult, accounting-at least in part-for bradykinesia. 1,7 It is this hypothesis that underlies the scientific rationale for performing pal- lidotomies, because a GPi lesion silences a portion of the overactive output, which then reduces the excessive inhibition.

Many recent clinical studies have ,shown that the main benefits from pallidotomy are 1) an improvement in the “off” state Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) score8-14 and 2) a reduction in drug-induced dysk ines i a~ .~ - l~ Prelevodopa era clinical studies documented improvement pri manly in rigidity and tremor, with an occasional statement suggest- ing an improvement in bradykinesia proportional to changes in rigidity.18J9 The effect of pallidotomy on basic motor function when the patient is in the ‘‘on’’ state is less clear. Some authors report no improvement in the “on” state UPDRS s c ~ r e s , ~ J ~ J ~ some report slight i m p r ~ v e m e n t , ~ J ~ and some report clear i m p r ~ v e m e n t . ~ ~ J ~ J ~ Moreover, several studies have shown an improvement in bradykinesia with the patient in the “on” state in such tasks as writing,13J6 tapping,sJ1 and the Purdue pegboard task.21 In their paper entitled “Ventroposterolateral pallidotomy can abolish all parkinsonian symptoms,” :Laitinen et a1.22 report: “Our study confirmed the findings of Svennil- son et all8 that parkinsonian tremor, rigor and hypo- kinesia can be effectively abolished by VPL pallidotomy” (p. 18).22

To date, few if any studies on the efficacy of pallidotomy have used laboratory-based objective measures of motor performance. In this; study we use objective measures to determine whether pallidotomy will result in improved performance of elbow flexion movements on the side contralateral to surgery when patients are “on.” Specifically, we tested the prediction that mean peak movement speed on the side contralateral to the surgery will increase following pallidotomy and should approach those speeds achieved in patients with mild parkinsonian symptoms. We also tested for improvement in other measures of motor performance including initiation time, peak acceleration, peak deceleration, and

symmetry. Elbow flexion movements were studied because they are known to be impaired in PD23-25; they are simple, well-studied movements; and they can be studied efficiently in a population with severe motor disabilities and motor fluctuations. We chose to test medicated patients to maximize the reduction in inhibition by combining drug therapy and pallidotomy. A lesion should silence a portion of the GPi output better than dopamine replacement therapy alone. Consequently, if the hypothesis is true, then a patient who is still bradykinetic when in the “on7’ state should move faster while in the “on” state after pallidotomy.

Methods. Patients. A subset of nine of the 26 patients (seven men and two women) enrolled in a clinical efficacy study of pal l idot~myl~,~~ agreed to participate in this motor control study. No patients with surgical complications were included. (Note: The protocol for this study was developed after the clinical study began. Consequently, only a subset of the patients from the clinical study are included in this study.) Eligibility requirements for the clinical study included patients with idiopathic PD whose disease was no longer controlled adequately by medical therapy due to disabling motor fluctuations or dyskinesias. Patients were required to be Hoehn and Yahr stage I11 or better when in the “on” state and stage IV or V when in the “off” state. Patients with a history of stereotactic neurosurgery for PD or with significant dementia or psychosis were excluded. Every attempt was made to hold antipar- kinsonian medication doses constant. Changes in drug dose were allowed only in response to adverse events. Ex- plicit informed consent was obtained from all subjects for the motor control study according to medical center- approved protocols. In addition, we identified seven age-matched men from our laboratory database of neurologically healthy subjects (age, 61.6 2 13 years; age range, 42 to 78 years) and the same from our database of patients with mild PD (Hoehn and Yahr stages I and 11; age, 60 5 11 years; age range, 44 to 72 years) who had undergone the same motor control paradigm. Our database did not contain appropriate age-matched control subjects for the two female pallidotomy patients, so they were excluded from the analysis associated with figure 2 (seven male pallidotomy patients; age, 58 5 10.7 years; age range, 44 to 68 years) in which the mean peak velocity of the pallidotomy patients before and after surgery while they were “on” was compared with healthy and mild parkinsonian control groups.

MRI and microelectrode tech- niques were used to target the ventral posterior portion of the internal segment of the GPi. A unilateral radiofi-e- quency lesion was placed at the target site. The day after surgery, standard MRI was performed to identify the lesion and its location. The scans showed the lesion to be placed properly in the GPi in all nine patients. Preopera- tive medications were reinstated immediately after surgery and the patients were discharged the first or second day after surgery. For a detailed description of the neurosurgical methodology see Shannon et al.14

Clinical evaluations were performed 1 month before and 1 month after surgery. They were performed in the “practically defined off state in the

September 1998 NEUROLOGY 51 797

Neurosurgical methods.

Experimental protocol.



morning 12 hours after the last dose of levodopa and again in the “on” state after the first morning dose of levodopa. The evaluation included the motor (part 111) and complications of therapy (part IV) subclasses of the UPDRSZ7 as well as timed motor tests as described in the Core Assessment Program for Intracerebral Transplantation (CAPIT).28 For a detailed description of the clinical methodology see Shannon et al.14 The patients were tested in the motor control laboratory 1 month before and 1 month after pallidotomy. Patients came to the laboratory immediately after their clinical evaluation in the “on” state and began motor testing.

We did not test patients who were in the “off state for two reasons. The primary reason was based on the scientific question we wanted to address. We were interested in whether bradykinesia in PD can be explained predominantly by excessive tonic inhibition of the thalamus. Be- cause there is already evidence from changes in “off” motor performance that excessive tonic inhibition is one contributing factor to bradykinesia, we chose to minimize tonic inhibition of thalamus with drug therapy first, then test whether patients who are slow even with drug therapy are further improved by pallidotomy. A secondary reason was that pilot experiments suggested that many patients were not able to perform the task as a single movement when they were in the “off” state. Consequently, the over- all movement time was the only measure that might be compared with the “on” data. We did not believe that this would give us information that was any more insightful than the timed motor tests that were already part of the clinical study,14 as well as clinical studies reported in the literature.8J0

The subject viewed a computer monitor that displayed a cursor, positioned along the horizontal axis by the joint angle. A small, stationary marker corresponded to the initial position. A broad band, 6 deg in width, was centered at the desired angular distance.

The subject was seated with the arm abducted 90 deg (the two limbs were tested sequentially). The forearm was strapped to a rigid, lightweight manipulandum that could rotate freely only in the horizontal plane. The axis of rotation was aligned with the elbow. Full extension of the right limb was defined as 90 deg (left limb, -90 deg). Elbow flexion of the right limb was in the negative direction (left limb, positive direction). The initial position of the right limb was 35 deg (left limb, -35 deg). The joint angle was measured by a capacitive transducer mounted on a shaft a t the axis of rotation. This angle was differentiated digi- tally to generate joint velocity. Joint acceleration was measured by a piezoresistive accelerometer mounted 47.6 cm from the center ofrotation. Surface electrodes were used to record electromyograms from the biceps and triceps (later- al head) muscles. The electromyographic (EMG) signals were amplified (gain, 1,600) and bandpass filtered (60 to 300 Hz). All signals were digitized at 1,00O/sec with 12-bit resolution. The EMG signals were full-wave rectified and filtered with a 25-msec moving average window off-line.

Subjects were asked to perform elbow flexion movements with both limbs over three distances (36, 54, and 72 deg) “as fast as possible to the target.” A tone signaled the subject to initiate the movement. A second tone, delivered 3 seconds later, signaled the end of the

Motor control experiment setup.

Task. ~

798 NEUROLOGY 51 September 1998

trial, a t which time the subject was asked to return to the initial position. Fifteen consecutive trials were performed at each distance.

Data analysis. A total of 2,250 trials were analyzed, including those of the control group. The following parameters were derived to characterize the data in each trial: peak velocity, maximum acceleration (peak acceleration during the acceleration phase), minimum acceleration (peak acceleration during the deceleration phase), symmetry (ratio of time in acceleration phase [i.e., time of peak velocity minus time of movement onset] to time in deceleration phase [i.e., time of movement offset minus time of peak velocity]), and initiation time (i.e., time at which the velocity first reaches 5% of peak velocity minus time of “go” tone).

Note that although initiation time was calculated, the instructions to the subjects did not emphasize reacting to the tone as quickly as possible, so this was not a reaction- time experiment.

The data were analyzed using paired t-tests, the sign test, and three-way repeated measures of ANOVAs. A preliminary study that we conducted during which nine patients were tested on the limb contralateral to the planned side of surgery two times at 1-month intervals before surgery showed no change in mean or variability of the motor control parameters from one session to the next. Consequently, in the current study we performed only one baseline test before surgery.

Statistical analysis.

Results. The upper panel of figure 1 shows the “off” UPDRS motor scores. Seven of nine patients had a lower off-state UPDRS score after pallidotomy, which resulted in a statistically significant improvement in the group mean ( p < 0.05, sign test). The lower panel of figure 1 shows the “on” UPDRS motor score before and after pallidotomy. There was no statistically significant improvement in the “on” motor UPDRS score. The group showed a statistically significant decrease in dyskinesia duration ( p = 0.0312, sign test; see figure 1).

Pallidotomy did not affect group mean peak movement velocity for elbow flexion movement. There was no effect of the surgery (F[1,8] = 1.68, p = 0.231) and no effect of the side tested (contralateral versus ipsilateral; F[1,8] = 0.08, p = 0.785), but there was a significant effect of movement distance (F[2,7] = 38.53, p = 0.0001). Higher peak velocities were achieved during longer movements than were achieved during shorter movements both pre- and postsur- gery. These data show no evidence that pallidotomy improved the speed with which elbow flexion movements are performed when patients are “on.” In addition, three-way ANOVAs (surgery by side by distance) were performed on peak movement acceleration, peak movement deceleration, symmetry, and initiation time. None of the variables showed a statistically significant effect of pallidotomy.

Moreover, when compared with age- and gender- matched neurologically healthy subjects and age- and gender-matched patients with mild PD, the pallidotomy patients were markedly slow both before and after surgery. Figure 2 shows the mean and standard error of peak movement velocity for both control groups and for seven of the pallidotomy patients (see Methods) before and after surgery. The pallidotomy patients moved at nearly half the speed of the mild PD patients, who in turn moved more slowly than the neurologically healthy subjects (see figure 2).



“Off’ Evaluation

.- 2 400

300

200

0 0 -

Y m a,

60

r/) 50

40 3 8 30

a

... r” 20

10

0

-

-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Patient Average

“On” Evaluation post pallidotomy

70 1 V, 50 6ol U g 40 3 6 30

0

10

c

2 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Patient Average

Figure 1. Effect of pallidotomy on motor Unified Parkin- son’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) scores. UPDRS motor scores are shown before (striped) and after (black) pallidotomy for the nine patients individually and the group averages both “off ’’ (upper panel) and “on” (Lower panel). Postsurgical improvement in “off” UPDRS motor scores was statistically significant for the group (asterisk). “On” UPDRS motor scores did not change significantly.

Although there was little evidence of improvement in mean motor performance of subjects while they were “on” (either in UPDRS score or in mean perfor-mance measures of elbow flexion movement), it appeared that many of the patients made their movements more consistently from trial to trial following pallidotomy. Figure 3 shows a set of individual trajectories recorded during one block of 72-deg movements before and after pallidotomy. In figure 3 after pallidotomy there is less scatter in peak acceleration and less fluctuation in acceleration records toward the end of the movements. In addition, EMG record,; c were more consistent after pallidotomy. These data show that pallidotomy did improve the trial-to-trial consistency of movements in some patients (see figure 3i.

In addition, an analysis of the variability of our motor performance measures further supports the notion of increased consistency following pallidotomy. The SD of five motor performance measures was analyzed using a three- way repeated measures ANOVA. The three independent variables were surgery, side of surgery, and movement distance. The surgery resulted in a significant reduction in the variability of initiation time (F[1,8] = 6.72, p = 0.0321, symmetry (F[1,8] = 9.35, p = 0.016), and peak movement acceleration (F[1,8] = 8.48, p = 0.02). In addition, the variability of peak speed (F[1,8] = 4.57, p = 0.065) and peak movement deceleration (F[1,8] = 4.00, p = 0.081) approached statistical significance. No other results were consistent across the five measures.

Discussion. In contrast to the hypothesis that pallidotomy should lead to an increase in movement speed, our study shows that pallidotomy does not restore movement speed of elbow flexion movements performed while the patient is “on” compared with healthy subjects or mildly impaired parkinsonian subjects. Pallidotomy was efficacious clinically for the patients in our study. They showed improved clinically tested motor function when they were “off” (see figure 1) and decreased dyskinesias when they were “on.” Although we did not have subjects perform this experiment while they were “off” (see Methods), we predict that “off” motor performance would have improved after pallidotomy. Preliminary results of motor testing experiments have suggested that “off ” movement speed increases after pallidotomy, with greater increases for tasks at proxi- mal joints compared with tasks performed at distal joints.50 In addition, reports of off-state, timed motor tests as part of clinical examinations have suggested improvement in bradykinesia.8J0J1 The clinical results in this subgroup were consistent with those of the larger group (26 patients) participating in a clinical efficacy study of p a l l i d o t ~ m y , ~ ~ , ~ ~ as well as with those reported in the literature (e.g., Lozano et a1.9 However, even though the pallidotomy patients were clearly slower than the mild PD patients and healthy control subjects (see figure 21, pallidotomy did not result in any increase in mean peak velocity of elbow flexion movement made as fast as possible while the patients were “on.” In addition, there was no change

600 1

- 500 1 v) . v

Healthy

Mild PO

Pre Post

100 I I I I I I

30 40 50 60 70 80 Distance (”)

Figure 2. Comparison of group mean peak velocities achieved during elbow flexion movements in pallidotomy, mild PO, and neurologically healthy subjects. Group mean peak velocity and standard error are shown for 36-, 54-, and 72-deg movements made as fast as possible by three age- and gender-matched groups. The group means of seven pallidotomy patients (see Methods) are shown before (open diamond) and after (solid diamond) pallidotomy. The group means of seven patients with mild PD are shown (open triangle) and the group means of seven neurologically healthy subjects are shown (open circle). Mild PD patients are much faster than pallidotomy patients, and healthy subjects are much faster than mild PD patients. The pallidotomy patients were tested while they were “on.”




Before Pallidotomy 6000 r

N- 4000 u) . - 2000 & 5 -2000

a -4000

._ G o

0 0

-6000 I I I I

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

0.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Time (sec)

After Pallidotomy 6ooo r

-6000 I I I I

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

0.7

0.6 1 0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Time (sec)

in the patient’s ability to scale peak velocity with distance while they were “on” after pallidotomy.

The other finding from this study is that the variability of some motor performance measures was reduced after pallidotomy. However, we do not know what component of the reduced variability is due to the reduction in dyskinesias and what component is due directly to a reduction in the variability of the motor commands associated with the intended movement. The reduction in variability of the motor performance measures reflecting events that occur later in the time series (peak velocity and peak deceleration) did not reach significance. Nevertheless, the reduction in the variability of peak acceleration is particularly important because it does imply that the forces required to initiate the movements are pro- duced more consistently.

Excessive tonic inhibition of the thalamus is not the only factor contributing to bradykinesia. The failure to increase movement speed while the patient is “on” after pallidotomy is somewhat surprising in light of the popular interpretation of the basal gan- glial circuit model, which has motivated the resurgence of pallidotomy in treating the symptoms of PD. 1,2,7,29 Dopamine replacement and enhancement therapy in monkeys who received MPTP has been shown to reduce the tonic firing rates of the overactive parkinsonian GPi.30 The subsequent disinhibition of the thalamus presumably facilitates movement in medicated PD patients. Because a pallidotomy completely silences a portion of the GPi output, it should disinhibit the thalamus similarly. Consequently, pallidotomy should further improve motor performance beyond that of drug therapy alone in those patients who are slow before surgery.

Our results show that pallidotomy does not result in the expected increase in speed of simple elbow flexion movements in spite of presurgery “best on” 800 NEUROLOGY 51 September 1998

Figure 3. Variability of individual trajectories. Individual trials of acceleration and triceps electromyographic (EMG) trajectories are shown for one block of 72-deg elbow flexion movements made by Patient 8 before (left panel) and after (right panel) pallidotomy. Movement and EMG trajectories are more consistent following pallidotomy. The patient was tested while she was “on.”

performances that are far slower than patients with mild PD. This suggests that excessive tonic inhibition is not the only major factor contributing to bradykinesia.

Note, however, that this result is not entirely surprising. The efficacy of lesions in the motor thalamus in treating some symptoms of PD show limitations of the idea that excessive tonic inhibition of the thalamus produces parkinsonian symptoms.

Loss of tuned, phasic activity may contribute to bradykinesia. Loss of normal phasic activity may also contribute to bradykinesia in PD,1,7 and pallidotomy clearly cannot facilitate this. It has been suggested that in a healthy basal ganglia, phasic activity may facilitate movement by selectively disin- hibiting the thalamus (e.g., Chevalier and Deniau31) or that it may prevent unwanted movement during a movement task while turning off selected postural muscle activity to allow a voluntary movement to O C C U ~ . ~ ~ - ~ ~ The interaction of tuned excitatory and inhibitory inputs to the GPi may create a tuned movement field that leads to normal movements.

Filion et aL5 showed that cells in the GPi of monkeys who received MPTP exhibit an increase in mag- nitude of response and a loss of specificity in response to passive movement stimuli. Conse- quently, they suggest that movement leads to abnormal responses in the GPi of monkeys who received MPTP, and that dopamine regulates both gain and selectivity within the basal ganglia. Moreover, striatal stimulation studies have shown that both spatial and temporal patterns of inhibition and excitation of GPi are abnormal in monkeys who received MPTP.35,36 The net effect is to increase dramatically the noise in the system. We believe it is the interference caused by this noise that is relieved by pal- l i d ~ t o m y . ~ ~ However, the loss of the specific, well-



controlled phasic responses of a healthy basal ganglia is likely to limit the maximal level of motor performance that is possible.

Studies of parkinsonian subjects have shown that PD patients generate large movement,s at low velocity,38 have a reduced ability to scale peak speed with movement a m p l i t ~ d e , ~ ~ , ~ ~ generate smaller than normal initial agonist bursts for these movements,24 and exhibit a reduced range of scaling of the initial agonist EMG burst for movements of different distanc- e ~ . ~ ~ It is possible that the decrease in specificity and the decrease in the range of phasic activity in the GPi correlate with the reduced ability to scale the agonist burst and to scale speed with movement amplitude. However, it is interesting that there was no change in the ability to scale speed with distance following pallidotomy even though all phasic activity is eliminated in the lesioned portion of the pathway.

Even though dopamine replacement and enhancement therapy has been shown to re’duce the tonic overactivity in the GPi of monkeys who received MPTP,30 it is not clear that drug therapy can restore the function of the motor circuit to the extent achieved by an intact SNc in which dopamine release is more controlled. Percheron and Filioq41 and 0th-

have suggested that the role of the intact dopaminergic system in the basal ganglia is precisely to increase the specificity and selectivity of the system. If the motor circuit has been degraded severely, it may no longer have the capability of controlling specificity adequately. If the benefits of drug therapy in patients at this stage are predominantly a result of reducing the tonic pallidal discharge (without re- gaining the normal specificity and tuning), then pallidotomy would be expected to have the same type of effect as medication. Of course, parkinsonian medication is also operating on the unlesioned portion of the GPi and other pathways within the system. This is consistent with clinical data in which pallidotomy leads to improvement in “off” UPDRS motor scores, but pallidotomy alone does not result in the “on” UPDRS scores achieved before or aft,er pallidotomy (e.g., see figure 1, Lozano et al.,8 and Baron et a1.l0).

In fact, it would be surprising if creating a lesion in the GPi in a parkinsonian brain could restore function beyond that achieved when a lesion is made in the GPi in an otherwise healthy brain. Because pallidal inactivation in an otherwise healthy monkey is most associated with slow movement ~ p e e d ~ , ~ ~ , ~ ~ - ~ ~ it would be surprising if there was no evidence of bradykinesia after placing a lesion in the GPi in these subjects, whether they were “on” or “off.” (Note that one study showed slowing of movements with small GPe lesions but not small GPi lesions.46) It is possible that bradykinesia as a result of a lesion is due to the loss of phasic activity of the lesioned pathway. In fact, we believe that the hypothesis of Mars- den and O b e ~ o ~ ~ that there is a deficit in some aspect of motor control after pallidotomy, will be extremely difficult to document because it is likely that the motor system in advanced-stage PD patients no

longer relies on this circuit for its normal role in motor control. In contrast we believe such deficits would become identifiable if pallidotomy were performed on patients with very mild PD in whom a partially functioning basal ganglia1 motor circuit is lesioned.

No contradiction with reports of improvement of bradykinesia. It is important to note that our finding that “on” movement speed does not increase in single-degree-of-freedom elbow flexion movements does not conflict necessarily with the finding that bradykinesia may improve in a repetitive or sequen- tial task such as tappinpJl or with off-state improvement. Individual movements may still be slow, but switching the time between movements may be improved, presumably due to a reduction in the interference with movement caused by presurgical abnormal GPi firing. Moreover, excessive tonic inhibition appears to be one important mechanism of bradykinesia in the “off” state, thus pallidotomy should improve off-state bradykinesia. However, drug therapy appears to minimize its contribution to the remaining bradykinesia in the “on” state.

Finally, we discuss briefly how the effect of pallidotomy on dyskinesias fits into our understanding of this motor circuit. With a simple gain control interpretation of the effect of dopamine, the reduction in dyskinesias after pallidotomy would be surprising because dyskinesias would result from too little activity of the GPi/SNr. Lesions would result in a more complete silencing than expected from dopamine therapy and thereby, if anything, would increase the dyskinesias. However, a more common interpretation, still consistent with the model, is that drug-induced dyskinesias result from a differential effect of drug therapy on the direct and indirect pathways, possibly via different effects on D1 and D2 receptor^.^^.^^ The resulting imbalance in interactions between the pathways, then, induces dyskinesias. Consequently, a pallidotomy blocks the outputs of the pathways through which dyskinesias are induced. This is consistent with the circuit model and the clinical results. Note, however, the fact that two opposing predictions about the effect of pallidotomy on dyskinesias are consistent with the same model emphasizes the need for development of more detailed basal ganglia motor circuit models.

The results that we have presented suggest that excessive tonic inhibition of the thalamus is not the only significant mechanism of bradykinesia in PD. Moreover, our results are consistent with the interpretation that pallidotomy reduces the interference in movement caused by the abnormal GPi firing but that deficits associated with the loss of the basal ganglia motor circuit remain. Consequently, having a lesioned basal ganglia motor circuit in patients with more advanced PD may be preferable to having a complete but malfunctioning motor circuit.

Effect of pallidotomy on dyskinesia.




Acknowledgments We acknowledge the support of Dr. Gerald Gottlieb, Dr. Aron Buchman, and the Movement Disorder Center at Rush Medical College, Chicago, IL. We also acknowledge Mark Shapiro for pro- gramming the data acquisition system, Dr. Sue Shott for her invaluable statistical analyses, and Jason Spaulding for extensive assistance in running experiments and processing data. We also thank Dr. Christopher Goetz for his comments on the manuscript.

References 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

802

DeLong MR. Primate models of movement disorders of basal ganglia origin. Trends Neurosci 1990;13(7):281-285. Alexander GE, Crutcher MD. Functional architecture of basal ganglia circuits: neural substrates of parallel processing. Trends Neurosci 1990; 13:266 -27 1. Garcia-Rill E. The basal ganglia and the locomotor regions. Brain Res Rev 1986;11:47-63. Miller WC, DeLong MR. Altered tonic activity of neurons in the globus pallidus and subthalamic nucleus in the primate MPTP model of parkinsonism. In: Carpenter M, Jayaraman A, eds. Basal ganglia 11. New York Plenum Press, 1987:415- 427. Filion M, Tremblay L, Bedard PJ. Abnormal influences of passive limb movement on the activity of globus pallidus neurons in parkinsonian monkeys. Brain Res 1988;444:165-176. Filion M, Tremblay L. Abnormal spontaneous activity of globus pallidus neurons in monkeys with MPTP-induced parkinsonism. Brain Res 1991;547:142-151. Wichmann T, DeLong MR. Pathophysiology of parkinsonian motor abnormalities. In: Narabayashi H, Nagatsu T, Yanagi- sawa N, Mizuno Y , eds. Advances in neurology. New York Raven Press, 1993:53-61. Lozano AM, Lang AE, Glavez-Jiminez N, e t al. Effect of GPi pallidotomy on motor function in Parkinson’s disease. Lancet

Dogali M, Fazzini E, Kolodny E, e t al. Stereotactic ventral pallidotomy for Parkinson’s disease. Neurology 1995;45:753- 761. Baron MS, Vitek JL, Bakay RAE, et al. Treatment of advanced Parkinson’s disease by posterior GPi pallidotomy: 1-year results of a pilot study. Ann Neurol 1996;40:355-366. Lang AE, Lozano AM, Montgomery E, Duff J , Tasker R, Hutchinson W. Posteroventral medial pallidotomy in advanced Parkinson’s disease. N Engl J Med 1997;337:1036- 1042. Fazzini E, Dogali M, Sterio D, Eidelberg D, Beric A. Stereotac- tic pallidotomy for Parkinson’s disease: a long-term follow-up of unilateral pallidotomy. Neurology 1997;48:1273-1277. Kopyov 0, Jacques D, Duma C, et al. Microelectrode-guided posteroventral medial radiofrequency pallidotomy for Parkin- son’s disease. J Neurosurg 1997;87:52-59. Shannon KM, Penn RD, Kroin JS, et al. Stereotactic pallidotomy for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease: efficacy and adverse effects at 6 months in 26 patients. Neurology 1998;50:

Sutton JP, Couldwell W, Lew MF, et al. Ventroposterior medial pallidotomy in patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease. Neurosurgery 1995;36:1112-1116. Laitinen LV, Bergenheim AT, Hariz MI. Leksell’s posteroventral pallidotomy in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. J Neurosurg 1992;76:53-61. Iacono RP, Shima F, Lonser RR, Kuniyoshi S , Maeda G, Yamada S. The results, indications, and physiology of posteroventral pallidotomy for patients with Parkinson’s disease. Neurosurgery 1995;36: 11 18 -1 125. Svennilson E, Torvik A, Lowe R, Leskell L. Treatment of parkinsonism by stereotactic thermolesions in the pallidal re- gion. Acta Psychiatr Neurol Scand 1960;35:358-377. Cooper IS. Surgical treatment of parkinsonism. Annu Rev Med 1965;16:309-330. Iacono RP, Lonser RR. Reversal of Parkinson’s akinesia by pallidotomy. Lancet 1994;343:418-419. Laitinen LV. Ventroposterolateral pallidotomy. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 1994;62:41-52.

1995;346:1383-1387.

434 - 438.

NEUROLOGY 51 September 1998

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

Laitinen LV, Bergenheim AT, Hariz MI. Ventroposterolateral pallidotomy can abolish all parkinsonian symptoms. Ster- eotact Funct Neurosurg 1992;58:14-21. Hallett M, Shahani BT, Young RR. Analysis of stereotyped voluntary movements a t the elbow in patients with Parkin- son’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1977;40:1129- 1135. Hallett M, Khoshbin S. A physiological mechanism of bradykinesia. Brain 1980;103:301-314. Corcos DM, Pfann KD, Buchman AS. Defective preprogram- ming does not account for the clinical deficits of Parkinson’s disease. Behav Brain Sci 1996;19(1):73-74. Shannon KM, Penn RD, Kroin JS, et al. Stereotactic pallidotomy for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease: efficacy and adverse effects at 6 months in 26 patients. Neurology 1997; 48(suppl 2):A137. Fahn S, Elton RL, the UPDRS Development Committee. Uni- fied Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale. In: Fahn S, Marsden CD, Calne DB, Goldstein M, eds. Recent developments in Par- kinson’s disease. Vol. 2. Florham Park, NJ: MacMillan Healthcare Information, 1987:153-163. Langston JW, Widner H, Goetz CG, et al. Core Assessment Program for Intracerebral Transplantation (CAPIT). Mov Dis- ord 1992;7:2-13. Ceballos-Baumann AO, Obeso JA, Vitek JL, et al. Restoration of thalamocortical activity after posteroventral pallidotomy in Parkinson’s disease. Lancet 1994;344:814. Filion M, Tremblay L, Bedard PJ. Effects of dopamine ago- nists on the spontaneous activity of globus pallidus neurons in monkeys with MPTP-induced parkinsonism. Brain Res 1991;

Chevalier G, Deniau JM. Disinhibition as a basic process in the expression of striatal functions. Trends Neurosci 1990;

Mink JW, Thach WT. Basal ganglia motor control. I. Nonex- clusive relation of pallidal discharge to five movement modes. J Neurophysiol 1991;65:273-300. Mink JW, Thach WT. Basal ganglia motor control. 11. Late pallidal timing relative to movement onset and inconsistent pallidal coding of movement parameters. J Neurophysiol 1991;65:301-329. Mink JW, Thach WT. Basal ganglia motor control. 111. Palli- dal ablation: normal reaction time, muscle cocontraction, and slow movement. J Neurophysiol 1991;65:330-351. Tremblay L, Filion M. Responses of pallidal neurons to striatal stimulation in intact waking monkeys. Brain Res 1989; 498:l-16. Tremblay L, Filion M, Bedard PJ. Responses of pallidal neurons to striatal stimulation in monkeys with MPTP-induced parkinsonism. Brain Res 1989;498:17-33. Wichmann T, DeLong MR. Functional and pathophysiological models of the basal ganglia. Curr Opin Neurobiol 1996;6:751- 758. Draper IT, Johns RJ. The disordered movement in parkinsonism and the effect of drug treatment. Bull Johns Hopkins

Flowers KA. Visual “closed loop” and “open loop” characteris- tics of voluntary movement in patients with parkinsonism and intention tremor. Brain 1976;99:269-310. Berardelli A, Dick JPR, Rothwell JC, Day BL, Marsden CD. Scaling of the size of the first agonist EMG burst during rapid wrist movements in patients with Parkinson’s disease. J Neu- rol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1986;49: 1273-1279. Percheron G, Filion M. Parallel processing in the basal ganglia: up to a point. Trends Neurosci 1991;14(2):55-56. Horak FB, Anderson ME. Influence of globus pallidus on arm movements in monkeys. I. Effects of kainic acid-induced lesions. J Neurophysiol 1984;52:290-304. Hore J, Vilis T. Arm movement performance during reversible basal ganglia lesions in the monkey. Exp Brain Res 1980;39:

Inase M, Buford JA, Anderson ME. Changes in the control of arm position, movement, and thalamic discharge during local inactivation in the globus pallidus of the monkey. J Neuro- physiol 1996;75:1087-1104. Alamy M, Pons J-C, Gambarelli D, Trouche E. A defective control of small-amplitude movements in monkeys with glo-

547:152-161.

13(7):277-280.

HOSP 1964; 115:465- 480.

217-228.



bus pallidus lesions: an experimental study on one component of pallidal bradykinesia. Behav Brain Res 1996;72:57-62.

46. Kato M, Kimura M. Effects of reversible blockade of basal ganglia on a voluntary arm movement. J Neurophysiol 1992;

47. Marsden CD, Obeso JA. The functions of the basal ganglia and the paradox of stereotaxic surgery in Parkinson’s disease. Brain 1994;117:877-897.

48. Crossman AR. A hypothesis on the pathophysiological mecha- nisms that underlie levodopa- or dopamine agonist-induced

dyskinesia in Parkinson’s disease: implications for future strategies in treatment. Mov Disord 1990;5:100-108.

49. Blanchet PJ, Gomez-Mancilla B, Di Pa010 T, Bedard PJ. 1s striatal dopaminergic receptor imbalance responsible for levodopa-induced dyskinesia? Fundam Clin Pharmacol 1995;

50. Brown RG, Limousin p, Jahanshahi M, Quinn N, Obese J, Rothwell JC. Posteroventral pallidotomy (PW) in Parkinson’s disease (PD). I: effects on initiation and execution of simple and complex movement. Mov Disord 1997;12(suppl 1): 129(P487).

68:1516-1534. 9:434-442.

The metabolic anatomy of tremor in Parkinson’s disease

A. Antonini, MD, PhD; J.R. Moeller, PhD; T. Nakamura, MD; P. Spetsieris, PhD; V. Ilhawan, PhD; and D. Eidelberg, MD

Article abstractqbject iue: To identify regional metabolic brain networks related specifically to the presence of tremor in PD. Background: The pathophysiology of parkinsonian tremor is unknown. Because tremor in PD occurs mainly in repose, we used resting state PET with “F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) to identify specific metabolic brain networks associated with this clinical manifestation. Methods: We studied two discrete groups of eight PD patients with and without tremor using FDGFET. Both patient groups were matched for gender, age, and Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale ratings for akinesia and rigidity. Ten normal volunteer subjects served as controls. Results: Network analysis with the Scaled Subprofile Model was performed in two steps. 1) We computed the expression of the PD-related pattern (PDRP) identified by us previously in each of the PD patients and control subjects. Although PDRP subject scores were abnormally elevated in the combined PD cohort ( p < 0.0051, these values did not differ in the PD patient groups with and without tremor ( p = 0.36). 2) We used SSM to analyze the data from the combined PD cohort comprising both patient groups. We found that PD patients with tremor were characterized by increased expression of a metabolic network comprising the thalamus, pons, and premotor cortical regions. Subject scores for this pattern were elevated in the tremor group compared with the atremulous patient group and the normal control group ( p < 0.005). Conclusions: The findings suggest that PD patients with tremor are characterized by distinct increases in the functional activity of thalamo-motor cortical projections. Modulation of this functional anatomic pathway is likely to be the mechanism for successful interventions for the relief of parkinsonian tremor. NEUROLOGY 1998;51:803-810

Along with rigidity and bradykinesia, resting tremor constitutes one of the cardinal clinical features of PD. Nonetheless, the functional substrate of parkinsonian tremor is not understood. Because tremor in PD occurs primarily in repose, we used resting state PET with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) to identify abnormal motor pathway activity that, is tremor specific. In earlier studies we utilized FDGPET and network analysis (Scaled Subprofile Model [SSMI l s 2 )

to identify a specific pattern of regional metabolic covariation associated with PD.3-5 T:his PD-related pattern (PDRP) was characterized by relative hyper-

metabolism of the lentiform nucleus and the thalamus associated with metabolic decreases in the primary and association motor cortices.

We also developed a technique of quantifying network expression in individual subjects on a prospec- tive basis (Topographic Profile Rating [TPR]6-8). This approach was used to quantify PDRP expression (pattern subject scores) in individual subjects from their FDG/PET scans. PDRP subject scores have been found to discriminate PD patients from normal controls and atypical parkinsonian patients in multiple study p o p ~ l a t i o n s . ~ , ~ , ~ , ~ These measures of patho-

From the Department of Neurology (Drs. Antonini, Nakamura, Spetsieris, Dhawan, and Eidelberg), North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset; New York University School of Medicine, New York and the Department of Psychiatry (Dr. Moeller), New York State Psychiatric Institute, Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY. Supported by NIH NS R01 35069 and the National Parkinson Foundation. Dr. Antonini was supported by the Junior Faculty Fellowship of the Parkinson Disease Foundation and the United Parkinson Foundation. Dr. Eidelberg was supported by the Cotzias Fellowship of the American Parkinson Disease Association. Received December 24, 1997. Accepted in final form May 1, 1998. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Eidelberg, Movement Disorders Center, North Shore University Hospital, 350 Community Drive, Manhasset, NY 11030.

Copyright 0 1998 by the American Academy of Neurology 803



1998;51;796-803 NeurologyKerstin D. Pfann, Richard D. Penn, Kathleen M. Shannon and Daniel M. Corcos

Pallidotomy and bradykinesia: Implications for basal ganglia function

This information is current as of May 7, 2010

& ServicesUpdated Information

http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/full/51/3/796including high-resolution figures, can be found at:

Permissions & Licensing

http://www.neurology.org/misc/Permissions.shtmlits entirety can be found online at: Information about reproducing this article in parts (figures, tables) or in

Reprints http://www.neurology.org/misc/reprints.shtml

Information about ordering reprints can be found online:


http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/full/51/3/796

http://www.neurology.org/misc/Permissions.shtml

http://www.neurology.org/misc/reprints.shtml


Documents

1998;51;796-803 Neurology Kerstin D. Pfann, Richard D. Penn