OBJECTIVE: To investigate the accuracy and reliability of 3D CT/MRI co-registration technique for the localization of implanted subdural electrodes in the routine epilepsy presurgical evaluation, in so doing assess its usefulness in planning the tailored resection of epileptic focus. METHODS: Four external anatomic fiducial makers were used for co-registration of volumetric pre-implant brain MRI and post-implant head CT using Curry 5.0 software in 19 epilepsy presurgical candidates. The location of subdural electrodes derived from the co-registration was compared to that obtained by intra-operative digital photographs by using gyral/sulcal patterns and cortical vasculature as anatomic markers. RESULTS: The mean localization error was 4.3+/-2.5 mm in all 19 patients. However, the mean localization error was 3.1+/- 1.3 mm in 13 patients with all four reliable fiducial markers; whereas the mean localization error was 6.8+/-2.4 mm in 6 patients with two or three reliable fiducial markers. CONCLUSION: Visualization of subdural electrode positions on a patient's cortex can be accurately performed in the routine clinical setting by 3D CT/MRI co-registration. However, the accuracy of co-registration is dependent upon having reliable surface fiducial markers. In practice, confirmation of location accuracy, such as with intra-operative digital photographs, is necessary for planning of tailored resective surgery. SIGNIFICANCE: The combination of 3D CT/MRI co-registration and intra-operative digital photography techniques provides a practical and effective algorithm for the localization and validation of implanted subdural electrodes.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the accuracy and reliability of 3D CT/MRI co-registration technique for the localization of implanted subdural electrodes in the routine epilepsy presurgical evaluation, in so doing assess its usefulness in planning the tailored resection of epileptic focus. METHODS: Four external anatomic fiducial makers were used for co-registration of volumetric pre-implant brain MRI and post-implant head CT using Curry 5.0 software in 19 epilepsy presurgical candidates. The location of subdural electrodes derived from the co-registration was compared to that obtained by intra-operative digital photographs by using gyral/sulcal patterns and cortical vasculature as anatomic markers. RESULTS: The mean localization error was 4.3+/-2.5 mm in all 19 patients. However, the mean localization error was 3.1+/- 1.3 mm in 13 patients with all four reliable fiducial markers; whereas the mean localization error was 6.8+/-2.4 mm in 6 patients with two or three reliable fiducial markers. CONCLUSION: Visualization of subdural electrode positions on a patient's cortex can be accurately performed in the routine clinical setting by 3D CT/MRI co-registration. However, the accuracy of co-registration is dependent upon having reliable surface fiducial markers. In practice, confirmation of location accuracy, such as with intra-operative digital photographs, is necessary for planning of tailored resective surgery. SIGNIFICANCE: The combination of 3D CT/MRI co-registration and intra-operative digital photography techniques provides a practical and effective algorithm for the localization and validation of implanted subdural electrodes.
Authors: Peter S LaViolette; Scott D Rand; Manoj Raghavan; Benjamin M Ellingson; Kathleen M Schmainda; Wade Mueller Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Vahid Taimouri; Alireza Akhondi-Asl; Xavier Tomas-Fernandez; Jurriaan M Peters; Sanjay P Prabhu; Annapurna Poduri; Masanori Takeoka; Tobias Loddenkemper; Ann Marie R Bergin; Chellamani Harini; Joseph R Madsen; Simon K Warfield Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2013-06-23 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Andrew R Dykstra; Alexander M Chan; Brian T Quinn; Rodrigo Zepeda; Corey J Keller; Justine Cormier; Joseph R Madsen; Emad N Eskandar; Sydney S Cash Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2011-11-28 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Michael S Trotta; John Cocjin; Emily Whitehead; Srikanth Damera; John H Wittig; Ziad S Saad; Sara K Inati; Kareem A Zaghloul Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2017-11-02 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Allan A Azarion; Jue Wu; Allison Pearce; Veena T Krish; Joost Wagenaar; Weixuan Chen; Yuanjie Zheng; Hongzhi Wang; Timothy H Lucas; Brian Litt; James C Gee; Kathryn A Davis Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2014-11-06 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: Peter S LaViolette; Scott D Rand; Benjamin M Ellingson; Manoj Raghavan; Sean M Lew; Kathleen M Schmainda; Wade Mueller Journal: Epilepsy Res Date: 2011-02-18 Impact factor: 3.045
Authors: Andrew I Yang; Xiuyuan Wang; Werner K Doyle; Eric Halgren; Chad Carlson; Thomas L Belcher; Sydney S Cash; Orrin Devinsky; Thomas Thesen Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2012-06-30 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: S Limmer; V Dicken; P Kujath; S Krass; C Stöcker; N Wendt; L Unger; M Hoffmann; F Vogt; M Kleemann; H-P Bruch; H-O Peitgen Journal: Chirurg Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 0.955