Literature DB >> 18666049

Accuracy and distortion of deep brain stimulation electrodes on postoperative MRI and CT.

M O Pinsker1, J Herzog, D Falk, J Volkmann, G Deuschl, M Mehdorn.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Postoperative monitoring of the electrode position is important to evaluate the best stimulation site in deep brain stimulation. MR imaging is excellent for ruling out postoperative complications e.g. haemorrhage, but its accuracy in electrode localisation is still controversial. The reasons for this are the size of the artefact around the electrode and its unclear relation to the electrode position (concentric or eccentric). The goal of this study was to determine the relation and size of these artefacts to the electrodes by comparing the position of the electrodes in postoperative MR and CT imaging.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Five patients underwent deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus due to levodopa-induced motor complications in Parkinson's disease. A stereotactic CT and a non-stereotactic MR were performed for postoperative localisation of the electrode position. The stereotactic MR for planning of the trajectories and targets was done under general anaesthesia. The latter two were fused to the stereotactic MR and the position of the DBS electrode contacts was determined on CT and MRI. The size of the artefact was measured at the level of each contact in two directions, anterior to posterior (AP) and lateral. Altogether 40 contacts were evaluated.
RESULTS: Mean size of the CT-artefact was 2.6 mm AP (range, 2.0-3.2 mm) and 2.6 mm laterally (range, 2.0-3.8 mm). In comparison, mean size on the MRI was 3.5 mm AP (range, 2.9-5.3 mm) and 3.8 mm laterally (range, 2.9-4.8 mm). A trajectory with a 1.2 mm diameter (size of the DBS electrode) was centred on the electrodes' artefact of the CT and the MRI. The difference between the contact coordinates was calculated as deviation of the artefact around the electrode on the MR. Mean deviation was 0.2 mm on the x-axis (range, 0-0.5 mm), 0.5 mm on the y-axis (range, 0-1.1 mm) and 0.3 mm on the z-axis (range, 0-0.7 mm). There were no significant differences (t-test, p > 0.4).
CONCLUSION: The size of the electrodes' artefact was smaller on CT compared to MR. Furthermore, the position was not precisely concentric around the electrode. Nevertheless, the mean deviation after measuring the contact position in both CT and MR was less than 1 mm in all three planes. Both techniques are eligible for postoperative localisation of DBS electrodes, with a small imprecision of the non-stereotactic MR compared to the stereotactic CT. This might be compensated by the fact that postoperative MR can rule out asymptomatic postoperative complications e.g. haemorrhages or infarctions, without radiation exposure of the patient.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18666049     DOI: 10.1055/s-2008-1077075

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Zentralbl Neurochir        ISSN: 0044-4251


  10 in total

1.  Evaluation of electrode position in deep brain stimulation by image fusion (MRI and CT).

Authors:  I Barnaure; P Pollak; S Momjian; J Horvath; K O Lovblad; C Boëx; J Remuinan; P Burkhard; M I Vargas
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  2015-05-29       Impact factor: 2.804

2.  Electrophysiologic Validation of Diffusion Tensor Imaging Tractography during Deep Brain Stimulation Surgery.

Authors:  V A Coenen; C Jenkner; C R Honey; B Mädler
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2016-03-31       Impact factor: 3.825

Review 3.  Post-operative imaging in deep brain stimulation: A controversial issue.

Authors:  Christian Saleh; Georges Dooms; Christophe Berthold; Frank Hertel
Journal:  Neuroradiol J       Date:  2016-03-30

4.  Comparison of Intraoperative 3-Dimensional Fluoroscopy With Standard Computed Tomography for Stereotactic Frame Registration.

Authors:  Terrance Peng; Daniel R Kramer; Morgan B Lee; Michael F Barbaro; Li Ding; Charles Y Liu; Spencer Kellis; Brian Lee
Journal:  Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown)       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 2.703

5.  DBSproc: An open source process for DBS electrode localization and tractographic analysis.

Authors:  Peter M Lauro; Nora Vanegas-Arroyave; Ling Huang; Paul A Taylor; Kareem A Zaghloul; Codrin Lungu; Ziad S Saad; Silvina G Horovitz
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2015-11-02       Impact factor: 5.038

6.  Using MDEFT MRI Sequences to Target the GPi in DBS Surgery.

Authors:  Andreas Nowacki; Michael Fiechter; Jens Fichtner; Ines Debove; Lenard Lachenmayer; Michael Schüpbach; Markus Florian Oertel; Roland Wiest; Claudio Pollo
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-09-14       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Integrity Assessment of a Hybrid DBS Probe that Enables Neurotransmitter Detection Simultaneously to Electrical Stimulation and Recording.

Authors:  Danesh Ashouri Vajari; Maria Vomero; Johannes B Erhardt; Ali Sadr; Juan S Ordonez; Volker A Coenen; Thomas Stieglitz
Journal:  Micromachines (Basel)       Date:  2018-10-10       Impact factor: 2.891

8.  Accuracy of Intraoperative Computed Tomography in Deep Brain Stimulation-A Prospective Noninferiority Study.

Authors:  Naomi I Kremer; D L Marinus Oterdoom; Peter Jan van Laar; Dan Piña-Fuentes; Teus van Laar; Gea Drost; Arjen L J van Hulzen; J Marc C van Dijk
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2019-01-10

9.  Methodology, outcome, safety and in vivo accuracy in traditional frame-based stereoelectroencephalography.

Authors:  Lars E van der Loo; Olaf E M G Schijns; Govert Hoogland; Albert J Colon; G Louis Wagner; Jim T A Dings; Pieter L Kubben
Journal:  Acta Neurochir (Wien)       Date:  2017-07-05       Impact factor: 2.216

10.  MaDoPO: Magnetic Detection of Positions and Orientations of Segmented Deep Brain Stimulation Electrodes: A Radiation-Free Method Based on Magnetoencephalography.

Authors:  Mevlüt Yalaz; Nicholas Maling; Günther Deuschl; León M Juárez-Paz; Markus Butz; Alfons Schnitzler; Ann-Kristin Helmers; Michael Höft
Journal:  Brain Sci       Date:  2022-01-08
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.