Medical Devices for Parkinson’s Disease
Fujikawa, Joji Tokushima University Tokushima University Educator and Researcher Directory
Morigaki, Ryoma Tokushima University Tokushima University Educator and Researcher Directory KAKEN Search Researchers
Yamamoto, Nobuaki Tokushima University Tokushima University Educator and Researcher Directory
Oda, Teruo Tokushima University Tokushima University Educator and Researcher Directory
Nakanishi, Hiroshi Tokushima University
Izumi, Yuishin Tokushima University Tokushima University Educator and Researcher Directory KAKEN Search Researchers
Takagi, Yasushi Tokushima University Tokushima University Educator and Researcher Directory
freezing of gait (FOG)
invasive medical devices
non-invasive medical device
Background: Pharmacotherapy is the first-line treatment option for Parkinson’s disease, and levodopa is considered the most effective drug for managing motor symptoms. However, side effects such as motor fluctuation and dyskinesia have been associated with levodopa treatment. For these conditions, alternative therapies, including invasive and non-invasive medical devices, may be helpful. This review sheds light on current progress in the development of devices to alleviate motor symptoms in Parkinson’s disease.
Methods: We first conducted a narrative literature review to obtain an overview of current invasive and non-invasive medical devices and thereafter performed a systematic review of recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of these devices.
Results: Our review revealed different characteristics of each device and their effectiveness for motor symptoms. Although invasive medical devices are usually highly effective, surgical procedures can be burdensome for patients and have serious side effects. In contrast, non-pharmacological/non-surgical devices have fewer complications. RCTs of non-invasive devices, especially non-invasive brain stimulation and mechanical peripheral stimulation devices, have proven effectiveness on motor symptoms. Nearly no non-invasive devices have yet received Food and Drug Administration certification or a CE mark.
Conclusion: Invasive and non-invasive medical devices have unique characteristics, and several RCTs have been conducted for each device. Invasive devices are more effective, while non-invasive devices are less effective and have lower hurdles and risks. It is important to understand the characteristics of each device and capitalize on these.
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
Frontiers Media S.A.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
|DOI (Published Version)|
|URL ( Publisher's Version )|
fnagi_14_807909.pdf 1.53 MB