Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 477

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Effects of pedunculopontine nucleus area stimulation on gait disorders in Parkinson's disease

Open access
Ferraye, M. U., Debu, B., Fraix, V., Goetz, L., Ardouin, C., Yelnik, J., Henry-Lagrange, C., Seigneuret, E., Piallat, B., Krack, P., Le Bas, J.-F., Benabid, A.-L., Chabardes, S., Pollak, P.·2010·Brain

Abstract

Gait disturbances are frequent and disabling in advanced Parkinson's disease. These symptoms respond poorly to usual medical and surgical treatments but were reported to be improved by stimulation of the pedunculopontine nucleus. We studied the effects of stimulating the pedunculopontine nucleus area in six patients with severe freezing of gait, unresponsive to levodopa and subthalamic nucleus stimulation. Electrodes were implanted bilaterally in the pedunculopontine nucleus area. Electrode placement was checked by postoperative magnetic resonance imaging. The primary outcome measures were a composite gait score, freezing of gait questionnaire score and duration of freezing episodes occurring during a walking protocol at baseline and one-year follow-up. A double-blind cross-over study was carried out from months 4 to 6 after surgery with or without pedunculopontine nucleus area stimulation. At one-year follow-up, the duration of freezing episodes under off-drug condition improved, as well as falls related to freezing. The other primary outcome measures did not significantly change, nor did the results during the double-blind evaluation. Individual results showed major improvement of all gait measures in one patient, moderate improvement of some tests in four patients and global worsening in one patient. Stimulation frequency ranged between 15 and 25 Hz. Oscillopsia and limb myoclonus could hinder voltage increase. No serious adverse events occurred. Although freezing of gait can be improved by low-frequency electrical stimulation of the pedunculopontine nucleus area in some patients with Parkinson's disease our overall results are disappointing compared to the high levels of expectation raised by previous open label studies. Further controlled studies are needed to determine whether optimization of patient selection, targeting and setting of stimulation parameters might improve the outcome to a point that could transform this experimental approach to a treatment with a reasonable risk-benefit ratio.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/brain/awp229

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 477

Metadata

Authors
Ferraye, M. U., Debu, B., Fraix, V., Goetz, L., Ardouin, C., Yelnik, J., Henry-Lagrange, C., Seigneuret, E., Piallat, B., Krack, P., Le Bas, J.-F., Benabid, A.-L., Chabardes, S., & Pollak, P.
Venue
Brain
Published
2009-09-22
Volume
133
Issue
1
Pages
205-214
ISSN
  • 0006-8950 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2156
OpenAlex
W2131760028
Cited by
477
References
0
FWCI
21.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effects of pedunculopontine nucleus area stimulation on gait disorders in Parkinson's disease. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/brain/awp229
The paper
Ferraye, M. U., Debu, B., Fraix, V., Goetz, L., Ardouin, C., Yelnik, J., Henry-Lagrange, C., Seigneuret, E., Piallat, B., Krack, P., Le Bas, J.-F., Benabid, A.-L., Chabardes, S., & Pollak, P. (2010). Effects of pedunculopontine nucleus area stimulation on gait disorders in Parkinson's disease. Brain. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awp229

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.