B Mädler1, V A Coenen. 1. Division of Stereotaxy and MR-Based Operative Techniques, Department of Neurosurgery, Bonn University Hospital, Bonn, Germany. burkhard.maedler@ukb.uni-bonn.de
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although progress has been made in understanding the optimal anatomic structures as target areas for DBS, little effort has been put into modeling and predicting electromagnetic field properties of activated DBS electrodes and understanding their interactions with the adjacent tissue. Currently, DBS is performed with the patient awake to assess the effectiveness and the side effect spectrum of stimulation. This study was designed to create a robust and rather simple numeric and visual tool that provides sufficient and practical relevant information to visualize the patient's individual VAT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multivariate polynomial fitting of previously obtained data from a finite-element model, based on a similar DBS system, was used. The model estimates VAT as a first-approximation sphere around the active DBS contact, using stimulation voltages and individual tissue-electrode impedances. Validation uses data from 2 patients with PD by MR imaging, DTI, fiber tractography, and postoperative CT data. RESULTS: Our model can predict VAT for impedances between 500 and 2000 Ω with stimulation voltages up to 10 V. It is based on assumptions for monopolar DBS. Evaluation of 2 DBS cases showed a convincing correspondence between predicted VAT and neurologic (side) effects (internal capsule activation). CONCLUSIONS: Stimulation effects during DBS can be readily explained with this simple VAT model. Its implementation in daily clinical routine might help in understanding the types of tissues activated during DBS. This technique might have the potential to facilitate DBS implantations with the patient under general anesthesia while yielding acceptable clinical effectiveness.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although progress has been made in understanding the optimal anatomic structures as target areas for DBS, little effort has been put into modeling and predicting electromagnetic field properties of activated DBS electrodes and understanding their interactions with the adjacent tissue. Currently, DBS is performed with the patient awake to assess the effectiveness and the side effect spectrum of stimulation. This study was designed to create a robust and rather simple numeric and visual tool that provides sufficient and practical relevant information to visualize the patient's individual VAT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multivariate polynomial fitting of previously obtained data from a finite-element model, based on a similar DBS system, was used. The model estimates VAT as a first-approximation sphere around the active DBS contact, using stimulation voltages and individual tissue-electrode impedances. Validation uses data from 2 patients with PD by MR imaging, DTI, fiber tractography, and postoperative CT data. RESULTS: Our model can predict VAT for impedances between 500 and 2000 Ω with stimulation voltages up to 10 V. It is based on assumptions for monopolar DBS. Evaluation of 2 DBS cases showed a convincing correspondence between predicted VAT and neurologic (side) effects (internal capsule activation). CONCLUSIONS: Stimulation effects during DBS can be readily explained with this simple VAT model. Its implementation in daily clinical routine might help in understanding the types of tissues activated during DBS. This technique might have the potential to facilitate DBS implantations with the patient under general anesthesia while yielding acceptable clinical effectiveness.
Authors: Volker A Coenen; Andreas Prescher; Thorsten Schmidt; Piero Picozzi; Frans L H Gielen Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2008-10-29 Impact factor: 2.216
Authors: Scott E Cooper; Alexis M Kuncel; Barbara R Wolgamuth; Ali R Rezai; Warren M Grill Journal: J Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 2.177
Authors: Niels Allert; Sabrina M Gippert; Bastian E A Sajonz; Christoph Nelles; Bettina Bewernick; Thomas E Schlaepfer; Volker A Coenen Journal: J Neural Transm (Vienna) Date: 2016-05-19 Impact factor: 3.575
Authors: Nora Vanegas-Arroyave; Peter M Lauro; Ling Huang; Mark Hallett; Silvina G Horovitz; Kareem A Zaghloul; Codrin Lungu Journal: Brain Date: 2016-02-26 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Andreas Horn; Ningfei Li; Till A Dembek; Ari Kappel; Chadwick Boulay; Siobhan Ewert; Anna Tietze; Andreas Husch; Thushara Perera; Wolf-Julian Neumann; Marco Reisert; Hang Si; Robert Oostenveld; Christopher Rorden; Fang-Cheng Yeh; Qianqian Fang; Todd M Herrington; Johannes Vorwerk; Andrea A Kühn Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Daria Nesterovich Anderson; Gordon Duffley; Johannes Vorwerk; Alan D Dorval; Christopher R Butson Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2018-10-02 Impact factor: 5.379
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