User login
Neurosurgical treatment of OCD: Patient selection, safety, and access
Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is typically a severe, chronic illness in which patients have recurrent, unwanted thoughts, urges, and compulsions.1 It causes significant morbidity and lost potential over time, and is the world’s 10th-most disabling disorder in terms of lost income and decreased quality of life, and the fifth-most disabling mental health condition.2 Patients with OCD (and their clinicians) are often desperate for an efficacious treatment, but we must ensure that those who are not helped by traditional psychotherapeutic and/or pharmacologic treatments are appropriate for safe neurosurgical intervention.
Pros and cons of neurosurgical therapies
Most patients with OCD are effectively treated with cognitive-behavioral therapy and pharmacotherapy in the form of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, clomipramine, or second-generation antipsychotics. However, up to 5% of individuals with OCD will have symptoms refractory to these traditional therapies.3 These cases require more aggressive forms of therapy, including radiofrequency ablation surgeries and deep brain stimulation (DBS). The efficacy of both therapies is similar at 40% to 60%.4,5 While these treatments can be life-changing for patients fortunate to receive them, they are not without issue.
Only a limited number of institutions offer these neurosurgical techniques, and for many patients, those locations may be inaccessible. Patients may not experience relief simply due to where they live, difficult logistics, and the high cost requisite to receive care. If fortunate enough to live near a participating institution or have the means to travel to one, the patient and clinician must then choose the best option based on the nuances of the patient’s situation.
Ablation techniques, such as gamma knife or magnetic resonance–guided ultrasound, are simpler and more cost-effective. A drawback of this approach, however, is that it is irreversible. Lesioned structures are irreparable, as are the adverse effects of the surgery, which, while rare, may include a persistent minimally conscious state or necrotic cysts.4 A benefit of this approach is that there is no need for lengthy follow-up as seen with DBS.
DBS is more complicated. In addition to having to undergo an open neurosurgical procedure, these patients require long-term follow-up and monitoring. A positive aspect is the device can be turned off or removed. However, the amount of follow-up and adjustments is significant. These patients need access to clinicians skilled in DBS device management.
Finally, we must consider the chronically ill patient’s perspective after successful treatment. While the patient’s symptoms may improve, their lives and identities likely developed around their symptoms. Bosanac et al6 describe this reality well in a case study in which a patient with OCD was “burdened with normality” after successful DBS treatment. He was finally able to work, build meaningful relationships, and approach previously unattainable social milestones. This was an overwhelming experience for him, and he and his family needed guidance into the world in which most of us find comfort.
As ablation techniques, DBS, and other cutting-edge therapies for OCD come to the forefront of modern care, clinicians must remember to keep patient safety first. Verify follow-up care before committing patients to invasive and irreversible treatments. While general access is currently poor, participating institutions should consider advertising and communicating that there is an accessible network available for these chronically ill individuals.
1. Ruscio AM, Stein DJ, Chiu WT, et al. The epidemiology of obsessive-compulsive disorder in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Mol Psychiatry. 2010;15(1):53-63.
2. World Health Organization. The Global Burden of Disease: 2004 Update. World Health Organization; 2008.
3. Jenike MA, Rauch SL. Managing the patient with treatment-resistant obsessive compulsive disorder: current strategies. J Clin Psychiatry. 1994;55 Suppl:11-17.
4. Rasmussen SA, Noren G, Greenberg BD, et al. Gamma ventral capsulotomy in intractable obsessive-compulsive disorder. Biol Psychiatry. 2018;84(5):355-364.
5. Kumar KK, Appelboom, G, Lamsam L, et al. Comparative effectiveness of neuroablation and deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder: a meta-analytic study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2019;90(4):469-473.
6. Bosanac P, Hamilton BE, Lucak J, et al. Identity challenges and ‘burden of normality’ after DBS for severe OCD: a narrative case study. BMC Psychiatry. 2018;18(1):186.
Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is typically a severe, chronic illness in which patients have recurrent, unwanted thoughts, urges, and compulsions.1 It causes significant morbidity and lost potential over time, and is the world’s 10th-most disabling disorder in terms of lost income and decreased quality of life, and the fifth-most disabling mental health condition.2 Patients with OCD (and their clinicians) are often desperate for an efficacious treatment, but we must ensure that those who are not helped by traditional psychotherapeutic and/or pharmacologic treatments are appropriate for safe neurosurgical intervention.
Pros and cons of neurosurgical therapies
Most patients with OCD are effectively treated with cognitive-behavioral therapy and pharmacotherapy in the form of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, clomipramine, or second-generation antipsychotics. However, up to 5% of individuals with OCD will have symptoms refractory to these traditional therapies.3 These cases require more aggressive forms of therapy, including radiofrequency ablation surgeries and deep brain stimulation (DBS). The efficacy of both therapies is similar at 40% to 60%.4,5 While these treatments can be life-changing for patients fortunate to receive them, they are not without issue.
Only a limited number of institutions offer these neurosurgical techniques, and for many patients, those locations may be inaccessible. Patients may not experience relief simply due to where they live, difficult logistics, and the high cost requisite to receive care. If fortunate enough to live near a participating institution or have the means to travel to one, the patient and clinician must then choose the best option based on the nuances of the patient’s situation.
Ablation techniques, such as gamma knife or magnetic resonance–guided ultrasound, are simpler and more cost-effective. A drawback of this approach, however, is that it is irreversible. Lesioned structures are irreparable, as are the adverse effects of the surgery, which, while rare, may include a persistent minimally conscious state or necrotic cysts.4 A benefit of this approach is that there is no need for lengthy follow-up as seen with DBS.
DBS is more complicated. In addition to having to undergo an open neurosurgical procedure, these patients require long-term follow-up and monitoring. A positive aspect is the device can be turned off or removed. However, the amount of follow-up and adjustments is significant. These patients need access to clinicians skilled in DBS device management.
Finally, we must consider the chronically ill patient’s perspective after successful treatment. While the patient’s symptoms may improve, their lives and identities likely developed around their symptoms. Bosanac et al6 describe this reality well in a case study in which a patient with OCD was “burdened with normality” after successful DBS treatment. He was finally able to work, build meaningful relationships, and approach previously unattainable social milestones. This was an overwhelming experience for him, and he and his family needed guidance into the world in which most of us find comfort.
As ablation techniques, DBS, and other cutting-edge therapies for OCD come to the forefront of modern care, clinicians must remember to keep patient safety first. Verify follow-up care before committing patients to invasive and irreversible treatments. While general access is currently poor, participating institutions should consider advertising and communicating that there is an accessible network available for these chronically ill individuals.
Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is typically a severe, chronic illness in which patients have recurrent, unwanted thoughts, urges, and compulsions.1 It causes significant morbidity and lost potential over time, and is the world’s 10th-most disabling disorder in terms of lost income and decreased quality of life, and the fifth-most disabling mental health condition.2 Patients with OCD (and their clinicians) are often desperate for an efficacious treatment, but we must ensure that those who are not helped by traditional psychotherapeutic and/or pharmacologic treatments are appropriate for safe neurosurgical intervention.
Pros and cons of neurosurgical therapies
Most patients with OCD are effectively treated with cognitive-behavioral therapy and pharmacotherapy in the form of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, clomipramine, or second-generation antipsychotics. However, up to 5% of individuals with OCD will have symptoms refractory to these traditional therapies.3 These cases require more aggressive forms of therapy, including radiofrequency ablation surgeries and deep brain stimulation (DBS). The efficacy of both therapies is similar at 40% to 60%.4,5 While these treatments can be life-changing for patients fortunate to receive them, they are not without issue.
Only a limited number of institutions offer these neurosurgical techniques, and for many patients, those locations may be inaccessible. Patients may not experience relief simply due to where they live, difficult logistics, and the high cost requisite to receive care. If fortunate enough to live near a participating institution or have the means to travel to one, the patient and clinician must then choose the best option based on the nuances of the patient’s situation.
Ablation techniques, such as gamma knife or magnetic resonance–guided ultrasound, are simpler and more cost-effective. A drawback of this approach, however, is that it is irreversible. Lesioned structures are irreparable, as are the adverse effects of the surgery, which, while rare, may include a persistent minimally conscious state or necrotic cysts.4 A benefit of this approach is that there is no need for lengthy follow-up as seen with DBS.
DBS is more complicated. In addition to having to undergo an open neurosurgical procedure, these patients require long-term follow-up and monitoring. A positive aspect is the device can be turned off or removed. However, the amount of follow-up and adjustments is significant. These patients need access to clinicians skilled in DBS device management.
Finally, we must consider the chronically ill patient’s perspective after successful treatment. While the patient’s symptoms may improve, their lives and identities likely developed around their symptoms. Bosanac et al6 describe this reality well in a case study in which a patient with OCD was “burdened with normality” after successful DBS treatment. He was finally able to work, build meaningful relationships, and approach previously unattainable social milestones. This was an overwhelming experience for him, and he and his family needed guidance into the world in which most of us find comfort.
As ablation techniques, DBS, and other cutting-edge therapies for OCD come to the forefront of modern care, clinicians must remember to keep patient safety first. Verify follow-up care before committing patients to invasive and irreversible treatments. While general access is currently poor, participating institutions should consider advertising and communicating that there is an accessible network available for these chronically ill individuals.
1. Ruscio AM, Stein DJ, Chiu WT, et al. The epidemiology of obsessive-compulsive disorder in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Mol Psychiatry. 2010;15(1):53-63.
2. World Health Organization. The Global Burden of Disease: 2004 Update. World Health Organization; 2008.
3. Jenike MA, Rauch SL. Managing the patient with treatment-resistant obsessive compulsive disorder: current strategies. J Clin Psychiatry. 1994;55 Suppl:11-17.
4. Rasmussen SA, Noren G, Greenberg BD, et al. Gamma ventral capsulotomy in intractable obsessive-compulsive disorder. Biol Psychiatry. 2018;84(5):355-364.
5. Kumar KK, Appelboom, G, Lamsam L, et al. Comparative effectiveness of neuroablation and deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder: a meta-analytic study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2019;90(4):469-473.
6. Bosanac P, Hamilton BE, Lucak J, et al. Identity challenges and ‘burden of normality’ after DBS for severe OCD: a narrative case study. BMC Psychiatry. 2018;18(1):186.
1. Ruscio AM, Stein DJ, Chiu WT, et al. The epidemiology of obsessive-compulsive disorder in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Mol Psychiatry. 2010;15(1):53-63.
2. World Health Organization. The Global Burden of Disease: 2004 Update. World Health Organization; 2008.
3. Jenike MA, Rauch SL. Managing the patient with treatment-resistant obsessive compulsive disorder: current strategies. J Clin Psychiatry. 1994;55 Suppl:11-17.
4. Rasmussen SA, Noren G, Greenberg BD, et al. Gamma ventral capsulotomy in intractable obsessive-compulsive disorder. Biol Psychiatry. 2018;84(5):355-364.
5. Kumar KK, Appelboom, G, Lamsam L, et al. Comparative effectiveness of neuroablation and deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder: a meta-analytic study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2019;90(4):469-473.
6. Bosanac P, Hamilton BE, Lucak J, et al. Identity challenges and ‘burden of normality’ after DBS for severe OCD: a narrative case study. BMC Psychiatry. 2018;18(1):186.
Borderline personality disorder: Remember empathy and compassion
Oh, great!” a senior resident sardonically remarked with a smirk as they read up on the next patient in the clinic. “A borderline patient. Get ready for a rough one ... Ugh.”
Before ever stepping foot into the patient’s room, this resident had prematurely established and demonstrated an unfortunate dynamic for any student or trainee within earshot. This is an all-too-familiar occurrence when caring for individuals with borderline personality disorder (BPD), or any other patients deemed to be “difficult.” The patient, however, likely walked into the room with a traumatic past that they continue to suffer from, in addition to any other issues for which they were seeking care.
Consider what these patients have experienced
A typical profile of these resilient patients with BPD: They were born emotionally sensitive. They grew up in homes with caretakers who knowingly or unknowingly invalidated their complaints about having their feelings hurt, about being abused emotionally, sexually, or otherwise, or about their worries concerning their interactions with peers at school. These caretakers may have been frightening and unpredictable, randomly showing affection or arbitrarily punishing for any perceived misstep, which led these patients to develop (for their own safety’s sake) a hypersensitivity to the affect of others. Their wariness and distrust of their social surroundings may have led to a skeptical view of kindness from others. Over time, without any guidance from prior demonstrations of healthy coping skills or interpersonal outlets from their caregivers, the emotional pressure builds. This pressure finally erupts in the form of impulsivity, self-harm, desperation, and defensiveness—in other words, survival. This is often followed by these patients’ first experience with receiving some degree of appropriate response to their complaints—their first experience with feeling seen and heard by their caretakers. They learn that their needs are met only when they cry out in desperation.1-3
These patients typically bring these maladaptive coping skills with them into adulthood, which often leads to a series of intense, unhealthy, and short-lived interpersonal and professional connections. They desire healthy, lasting connections with others, but through no fault of their own are unable to appropriately manage the normal stressors therein.1 Often, these patients do not know of their eventual BPD diagnosis, or even reject it due to its ever-negative valence. For other patients, receiving a personality disorder diagnosis is incredibly validating because they are no longer alone regarding this type of suffering, and a doctor—a caretaker—is finally making sense of this tumultuous world.
The countertransference of frustration, anxiety, doubt, and annoyance we may feel when caring for patients with BPD pales in comparison to living in their shoes and carrying the weight of what they have had to endure before presenting to our care. As these resilient patients wait in the exam room for the chance to be heard, let this be a reminder to greet them with the patience, understanding, empathy, and compassion that physicians are known to embody.
Suggestions for working with ‘difficult’ patients
The following tips may be helpful for building rapport with patients with BPD or other “difficult” patients:
- validate their complaints, and the difficulties they cause
- be genuine and honest when discussing their complaints
- acknowledge your own mistakes and misunderstandings in their care
- don’t be defensive—accept criticism with an open mind
- practice listening with intent, and reflective listening
- set ground rules and stick to them (eg, time limits, prescribing expectations, patient-physician relationship boundaries)
- educate and support the patient and their loved ones.
1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed. American Psychiatric Association; 2013:947.
2. Porter C, Palmier-Claus J, Branitsky A, et al. Childhood adversity and borderline personality disorder: a meta-analysis. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2020;141(1):6-20.
3. Sansone RA, Sansone LA. Emotional hyper-reactivity in borderline personality disorder. Psychiatry (Edgmont). 2010;7(9):16-20.
Oh, great!” a senior resident sardonically remarked with a smirk as they read up on the next patient in the clinic. “A borderline patient. Get ready for a rough one ... Ugh.”
Before ever stepping foot into the patient’s room, this resident had prematurely established and demonstrated an unfortunate dynamic for any student or trainee within earshot. This is an all-too-familiar occurrence when caring for individuals with borderline personality disorder (BPD), or any other patients deemed to be “difficult.” The patient, however, likely walked into the room with a traumatic past that they continue to suffer from, in addition to any other issues for which they were seeking care.
Consider what these patients have experienced
A typical profile of these resilient patients with BPD: They were born emotionally sensitive. They grew up in homes with caretakers who knowingly or unknowingly invalidated their complaints about having their feelings hurt, about being abused emotionally, sexually, or otherwise, or about their worries concerning their interactions with peers at school. These caretakers may have been frightening and unpredictable, randomly showing affection or arbitrarily punishing for any perceived misstep, which led these patients to develop (for their own safety’s sake) a hypersensitivity to the affect of others. Their wariness and distrust of their social surroundings may have led to a skeptical view of kindness from others. Over time, without any guidance from prior demonstrations of healthy coping skills or interpersonal outlets from their caregivers, the emotional pressure builds. This pressure finally erupts in the form of impulsivity, self-harm, desperation, and defensiveness—in other words, survival. This is often followed by these patients’ first experience with receiving some degree of appropriate response to their complaints—their first experience with feeling seen and heard by their caretakers. They learn that their needs are met only when they cry out in desperation.1-3
These patients typically bring these maladaptive coping skills with them into adulthood, which often leads to a series of intense, unhealthy, and short-lived interpersonal and professional connections. They desire healthy, lasting connections with others, but through no fault of their own are unable to appropriately manage the normal stressors therein.1 Often, these patients do not know of their eventual BPD diagnosis, or even reject it due to its ever-negative valence. For other patients, receiving a personality disorder diagnosis is incredibly validating because they are no longer alone regarding this type of suffering, and a doctor—a caretaker—is finally making sense of this tumultuous world.
The countertransference of frustration, anxiety, doubt, and annoyance we may feel when caring for patients with BPD pales in comparison to living in their shoes and carrying the weight of what they have had to endure before presenting to our care. As these resilient patients wait in the exam room for the chance to be heard, let this be a reminder to greet them with the patience, understanding, empathy, and compassion that physicians are known to embody.
Suggestions for working with ‘difficult’ patients
The following tips may be helpful for building rapport with patients with BPD or other “difficult” patients:
- validate their complaints, and the difficulties they cause
- be genuine and honest when discussing their complaints
- acknowledge your own mistakes and misunderstandings in their care
- don’t be defensive—accept criticism with an open mind
- practice listening with intent, and reflective listening
- set ground rules and stick to them (eg, time limits, prescribing expectations, patient-physician relationship boundaries)
- educate and support the patient and their loved ones.
Oh, great!” a senior resident sardonically remarked with a smirk as they read up on the next patient in the clinic. “A borderline patient. Get ready for a rough one ... Ugh.”
Before ever stepping foot into the patient’s room, this resident had prematurely established and demonstrated an unfortunate dynamic for any student or trainee within earshot. This is an all-too-familiar occurrence when caring for individuals with borderline personality disorder (BPD), or any other patients deemed to be “difficult.” The patient, however, likely walked into the room with a traumatic past that they continue to suffer from, in addition to any other issues for which they were seeking care.
Consider what these patients have experienced
A typical profile of these resilient patients with BPD: They were born emotionally sensitive. They grew up in homes with caretakers who knowingly or unknowingly invalidated their complaints about having their feelings hurt, about being abused emotionally, sexually, or otherwise, or about their worries concerning their interactions with peers at school. These caretakers may have been frightening and unpredictable, randomly showing affection or arbitrarily punishing for any perceived misstep, which led these patients to develop (for their own safety’s sake) a hypersensitivity to the affect of others. Their wariness and distrust of their social surroundings may have led to a skeptical view of kindness from others. Over time, without any guidance from prior demonstrations of healthy coping skills or interpersonal outlets from their caregivers, the emotional pressure builds. This pressure finally erupts in the form of impulsivity, self-harm, desperation, and defensiveness—in other words, survival. This is often followed by these patients’ first experience with receiving some degree of appropriate response to their complaints—their first experience with feeling seen and heard by their caretakers. They learn that their needs are met only when they cry out in desperation.1-3
These patients typically bring these maladaptive coping skills with them into adulthood, which often leads to a series of intense, unhealthy, and short-lived interpersonal and professional connections. They desire healthy, lasting connections with others, but through no fault of their own are unable to appropriately manage the normal stressors therein.1 Often, these patients do not know of their eventual BPD diagnosis, or even reject it due to its ever-negative valence. For other patients, receiving a personality disorder diagnosis is incredibly validating because they are no longer alone regarding this type of suffering, and a doctor—a caretaker—is finally making sense of this tumultuous world.
The countertransference of frustration, anxiety, doubt, and annoyance we may feel when caring for patients with BPD pales in comparison to living in their shoes and carrying the weight of what they have had to endure before presenting to our care. As these resilient patients wait in the exam room for the chance to be heard, let this be a reminder to greet them with the patience, understanding, empathy, and compassion that physicians are known to embody.
Suggestions for working with ‘difficult’ patients
The following tips may be helpful for building rapport with patients with BPD or other “difficult” patients:
- validate their complaints, and the difficulties they cause
- be genuine and honest when discussing their complaints
- acknowledge your own mistakes and misunderstandings in their care
- don’t be defensive—accept criticism with an open mind
- practice listening with intent, and reflective listening
- set ground rules and stick to them (eg, time limits, prescribing expectations, patient-physician relationship boundaries)
- educate and support the patient and their loved ones.
1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed. American Psychiatric Association; 2013:947.
2. Porter C, Palmier-Claus J, Branitsky A, et al. Childhood adversity and borderline personality disorder: a meta-analysis. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2020;141(1):6-20.
3. Sansone RA, Sansone LA. Emotional hyper-reactivity in borderline personality disorder. Psychiatry (Edgmont). 2010;7(9):16-20.
1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed. American Psychiatric Association; 2013:947.
2. Porter C, Palmier-Claus J, Branitsky A, et al. Childhood adversity and borderline personality disorder: a meta-analysis. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2020;141(1):6-20.
3. Sansone RA, Sansone LA. Emotional hyper-reactivity in borderline personality disorder. Psychiatry (Edgmont). 2010;7(9):16-20.
