Literature DB >> 21242844

Frame-based vs frameless placement of intrahippocampal depth electrodes in patients with refractory epilepsy: a comparative in vivo (application) study.

Martin Ortler1, Florian Sohm, Wilhelm Eisner, Richard Bauer, Judith Dobesberger, Eugen Trinka, Gerlig Widmann, Reto Bale.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite progress in imaging technologies, documentation of unifocal electrical excitability is pivotal in patient selection for epilepsy surgery.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the application accuracy of the Vogele-Bale-Hohner system (VBH), a maxillary fixation system with an external fiducial frame permitting frameless stereotactic guidance, with that of conventional frame-based stereotaxy for placement of intrahippocampal depth electrodes (DEs) in patients with refractory epilepsy.
METHODS: Retrospective study. Comparison of two patient cohorts with DEs implanted along the occipitotemporal axis (group A, VBH; group B, frame-based stereotaxy). In vivo accuracy (lateral target localization error [TLE]), determined postoperatively by measuring the normal distance between virtual target and real electrode position at the tip and at 4cm from the tip, number of electrode contacts within the target structure, and diagnostic quality of electroencephalogram recordings were compared.
RESULTS: Seventeen DEs (A, 6 electrodes, 60 contacts; B, 11 electrodes, 90 contacts) were placed. electroencephalogram recordings via DEs supported further treatment decisions in all patients. TLE was 2.433 ± 0.977 mm (SD) (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.715-3.214 mm) (A) and 1.803 ± 0.392 mm (SD) (95% CI,1.511-2.195 mm) (B) (P = .185). Maximal error was 4 mm (A) and 3.2 mm (B). TLE 4 cm from the tip was 2.166 ± 2.188 mm (SD) (95% CI,0.438-3.916 mm) (A) and 1.372 ± 0.548 mm (SD) (95% CI,1.049-1.695 mm) (B) (P = .39). Maximal error 4 cm from the tip was 6.4 mm (A) and 2.14 mm (B). On average, 7 (A) and 5 (B) electrode contacts were placed in the target region.
CONCLUSION: The VBH and frame-based systems offer similar in vivo accuracy for intrahippocampal DE placement. With frame-based methods, accuracy is higher but the number of contacts per side is lower. This does not translate to clinically important differences.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21242844     DOI: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e3182098e31

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurosurgery        ISSN: 0148-396X            Impact factor:   4.654


  4 in total

Review 1.  Accuracy of intracranial electrode placement for stereoencephalography: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Vejay N Vakharia; Rachel Sparks; Aidan G O'Keeffe; Roman Rodionov; Anna Miserocchi; Andrew McEvoy; Sebastien Ourselin; John Duncan
Journal:  Epilepsia       Date:  2017-03-06       Impact factor: 5.864

Review 2.  Intracranial electrodes in the presurgical evaluation of epilepsy.

Authors:  Jinxian Yuan; Yangmei Chen; Edouard Hirsch
Journal:  Neurol Sci       Date:  2012-03-30       Impact factor: 3.307

3.  Novel microscope-based visual display and nasopharyngeal registration for auditory brainstem implantation: a feasibility study in an ex vivo model.

Authors:  Milovan Regodić; Christian F Freyschlag; Johannes Kerschbaumer; Malik Galijašević; Romed Hörmann; Wolfgang Freysinger
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2021-11-18       Impact factor: 2.924

4.  Navigated, Robot-Driven Laser Craniotomy for SEEG Application Using Optical Coherence Tomography in an Animal Model.

Authors:  Fabian Winter; Tobias Wilken; Martin Bammerlin; Julia Shawarba; Christian Dorfer; Karl Roessler
Journal:  Front Robot AI       Date:  2021-06-30
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.