INTRODUCTION: The primary goal of stereotactic systems in deep brain stimulation (DBS) surgery is accurate delivery of a DBS lead to a target identified on imaging. Thus, it is critical to understand the accuracy of the stereotactic systems and the factors which may be associated with a decrease in accuracy. METHODS: Ninety patients underwent microelectrode recording-guided placement of 139 DBS leads by a single surgeon using the Cosman-Roberts-Wells (CRW) frame (n = 70) or a frameless skull-mounted trajectory guide (Nexframe; n = 69). The final DBS location was identified on a postoperative CT fused to the preoperative CT and MRI scans. The difference between this final location and the expected location was calculated. RESULTS: The vector error was 2.65 mm (standard error, 0.22) for the frame and 2.78 mm (standard error, 0.25) for the frameless methods (p = 0.69). There was a gradual decline in error for both systems over time, as the vector error of the last 20 implants was 1.99 for the CRW frame and 2.04 for the Nexframe (p = 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the CRW frame and Nexframe frameless systems have equivalent accuracy. Furthermore, the accuracy of both techniques improved over time, from 3 mm initially to 2 mm with current techniques. 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel.
INTRODUCTION: The primary goal of stereotactic systems in deep brain stimulation (DBS) surgery is accurate delivery of a DBS lead to a target identified on imaging. Thus, it is critical to understand the accuracy of the stereotactic systems and the factors which may be associated with a decrease in accuracy. METHODS: Ninety patients underwent microelectrode recording-guided placement of 139 DBS leads by a single surgeon using the Cosman-Roberts-Wells (CRW) frame (n = 70) or a frameless skull-mounted trajectory guide (Nexframe; n = 69). The final DBS location was identified on a postoperative CT fused to the preoperative CT and MRI scans. The difference between this final location and the expected location was calculated. RESULTS: The vector error was 2.65 mm (standard error, 0.22) for the frame and 2.78 mm (standard error, 0.25) for the frameless methods (p = 0.69). There was a gradual decline in error for both systems over time, as the vector error of the last 20 implants was 1.99 for the CRW frame and 2.04 for the Nexframe (p = 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the CRW frame and Nexframe frameless systems have equivalent accuracy. Furthermore, the accuracy of both techniques improved over time, from 3 mm initially to 2 mm with current techniques. 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel.
Authors: Peter E Konrad; Joseph S Neimat; Hong Yu; Chris C Kao; Michael S Remple; Pierre-François D'Haese; Benoit M Dawant Journal: Stereotact Funct Neurosurg Date: 2010-12-15 Impact factor: 1.875
Authors: Aaron E Rusheen; Abhijeet S Barath; Abhinav Goyal; J Hudson Barnett; Benjamin T Gifford; Kevin E Bennet; Charles D Blaha; Stephan J Goerss; Yoonbae Oh; Kendall H Lee Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2020-12-16 Impact factor: 5.379
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