PURPOSE: Subdural electrodes are implanted for recording intracranial EEG (iEEG) in cases of medically refractory epilepsy as a means to locate cortical regions of seizure onset amenable to surgical resection. Without the aid of imaging-derived 3D electrode models for surgical planning, surgeons have relied on electrodes remaining stationary from the time between placement and follow-up resection. This study quantifies electrode shift with respect to the cortical surface occurring between electrode placement and subsequent reopening. METHODS: CT and structural MRI data were gathered following electrode placement on 10 patients undergoing surgical epilepsy treatment. MRI data were used to create patient specific post-grid 3D reconstructions of cortex, while CT data were co-registered to the MRI and thresholded to reveal electrodes only. At the time of resective surgery, the craniotomy was reopened and electrode positions were determined using intraoperative navigational equipment. Changes in position were then calculated between CT coordinates and intraoperative electrode coordinates. RESULTS: Five out of ten patients showed statistically significant overall magnitude differences in electrode positions (mean: 7.2mm), while 4 exhibited significant decompression based shift (mean: 4.7mm), and 3 showed significant shear displacement along the surface of the brain (mean: 7.1mm). DISCUSSION: Shift in electrode position with respect to the cortical surface has never been precisely measured. We show that in 50% of our cases statistically significant shift occurred. These observations demonstrate the potential utility of complimenting electrode position measures at the reopening of the craniotomy with 3D electrode and brain surface models derived from post-implantation CT and MR imaging for better definition of surgical boundaries.
PURPOSE: Subdural electrodes are implanted for recording intracranial EEG (iEEG) in cases of medically refractory epilepsy as a means to locate cortical regions of seizure onset amenable to surgical resection. Without the aid of imaging-derived 3D electrode models for surgical planning, surgeons have relied on electrodes remaining stationary from the time between placement and follow-up resection. This study quantifies electrode shift with respect to the cortical surface occurring between electrode placement and subsequent reopening. METHODS: CT and structural MRI data were gathered following electrode placement on 10 patients undergoing surgical epilepsy treatment. MRI data were used to create patient specific post-grid 3D reconstructions of cortex, while CT data were co-registered to the MRI and thresholded to reveal electrodes only. At the time of resective surgery, the craniotomy was reopened and electrode positions were determined using intraoperative navigational equipment. Changes in position were then calculated between CT coordinates and intraoperative electrode coordinates. RESULTS: Five out of ten patients showed statistically significant overall magnitude differences in electrode positions (mean: 7.2mm), while 4 exhibited significant decompression based shift (mean: 4.7mm), and 3 showed significant shear displacement along the surface of the brain (mean: 7.1mm). DISCUSSION: Shift in electrode position with respect to the cortical surface has never been precisely measured. We show that in 50% of our cases statistically significant shift occurred. These observations demonstrate the potential utility of complimenting electrode position measures at the reopening of the craniotomy with 3D electrode and brain surface models derived from post-implantation CT and MR imaging for better definition of surgical boundaries.
Authors: Bruce Fischl; David H Salat; Evelina Busa; Marilyn Albert; Megan Dieterich; Christian Haselgrove; Andre van der Kouwe; Ron Killiany; David Kennedy; Shuna Klaveness; Albert Montillo; Nikos Makris; Bruce Rosen; Anders M Dale Journal: Neuron Date: 2002-01-31 Impact factor: 17.173
Authors: Jörg Wellmer; Joachim von Oertzen; Carlo Schaller; Horst Urbach; Roy König; Guido Widman; Dirk Van Roost; Christian E Elger Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: Dimitri Kovalev; Joachim Spreer; Jürgen Honegger; Josef Zentner; Andreas Schulze-Bonhage; Hans-Jürgen Huppertz Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Kai J Miller; Scott Makeig; Adam O Hebb; Rajesh P N Rao; Marcel denNijs; Jeffrey G Ojemann Journal: J Neurosci Methods Date: 2007-02-01 Impact factor: 2.390
Authors: James X Tao; Susan Hawes-Ebersole; Maria Baldwin; Sona Shah; Robert K Erickson; John S Ebersole Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2009-03-04 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Sarang S Dalal; Erik Edwards; Heidi E Kirsch; Nicholas M Barbaro; Robert T Knight; Srikantan S Nagarajan Journal: J Neurosci Methods Date: 2008-07-06 Impact factor: 2.390
Authors: Xiaoyao Fan; David W Roberts; Yasmin Kamal; Jonathan D Olson; Keith D Paulsen Journal: Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 2.703
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: 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: 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: Melissa A Prah; Mona M Al-Gizawiy; Wade M Mueller; Elizabeth J Cochran; Raymond G Hoffmann; Jennifer M Connelly; Kathleen M Schmainda Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2017-09-12 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Alejandro O Blenkmann; Holly N Phillips; Juan P Princich; James B Rowe; Tristan A Bekinschtein; Carlos H Muravchik; Silvia Kochen Journal: Front Neuroinform Date: 2017-03-02 Impact factor: 4.081