BACKGROUND: In essential tremor (ET), the main target for deep brain stimulation (DBS) is the thalamic ventralis intermedius nucleus (Vim). This target cannot be identified on conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Therefore, targeting depends on probabilistic coordinates derived from stereotactic atlases. The goal of our study was to investigate the variability of atlas-based Vim targets in relation to surrounding major fibre tracts. METHODS: With the MRI and computed tomography (CT) scan data of ten patients who underwent DBS, we planned atlas based Vim targets in both hemispheres. We also performed deterministic fibre-tracking with diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) of the dentato-rubro-thalamic tract (DRTT), pyramidal tract (PT) and lemniscus medialis (LM) in all 20 hemispheres. Subsequently, we measured the distance from the atlas-based Vim target to each tract along the medial/lateral (x-coordinate), anterior/posterior (y-coordinate) and superior/inferior axis (z-coordinate). RESULTS: Seventeen out of 20 DRTTs could be depicted with our standardised DTI/fibre-tracking parameters. The PT and the LM could be displayed in all 20 hemispheres. The atlas-based Vim target was found inside the DRTT in 11 (concerning the x-coordinate) and 10 hemispheres (concerning the z-coordinate). Regarding the anterior/posterior direction, the target was posterior to the DRTT in 11 cases. In 19 hemispheres the Vim target was located medial and superior to the PT and in 17 hemispheres posterior to it. Concerning the LM, the Vim target was found inside the LM in 16 (regarding the x-coordinate) and in 14 cases (regarding the z-coordinate). In eight cases it was located inside and in 12 cases anterior to the LM concerning the y-coordinate. CONCLUSIONS: We found a considerable variability of the location of atlas-based target points of the ventralis intermedius nucleus in relation to neighbouring major fibre tracts in individual patients. These results suggest that individualised targeting to structures not directly visible on conventional MRI is necessary.
BACKGROUND: In essential tremor (ET), the main target for deep brain stimulation (DBS) is the thalamic ventralis intermedius nucleus (Vim). This target cannot be identified on conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Therefore, targeting depends on probabilistic coordinates derived from stereotactic atlases. The goal of our study was to investigate the variability of atlas-based Vim targets in relation to surrounding major fibre tracts. METHODS: With the MRI and computed tomography (CT) scan data of ten patients who underwent DBS, we planned atlas based Vim targets in both hemispheres. We also performed deterministic fibre-tracking with diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) of the dentato-rubro-thalamic tract (DRTT), pyramidal tract (PT) and lemniscus medialis (LM) in all 20 hemispheres. Subsequently, we measured the distance from the atlas-based Vim target to each tract along the medial/lateral (x-coordinate), anterior/posterior (y-coordinate) and superior/inferior axis (z-coordinate). RESULTS: Seventeen out of 20 DRTTs could be depicted with our standardised DTI/fibre-tracking parameters. The PT and the LM could be displayed in all 20 hemispheres. The atlas-based Vim target was found inside the DRTT in 11 (concerning the x-coordinate) and 10 hemispheres (concerning the z-coordinate). Regarding the anterior/posterior direction, the target was posterior to the DRTT in 11 cases. In 19 hemispheres the Vim target was located medial and superior to the PT and in 17 hemispheres posterior to it. Concerning the LM, the Vim target was found inside the LM in 16 (regarding the x-coordinate) and in 14 cases (regarding the z-coordinate). In eight cases it was located inside and in 12 cases anterior to the LM concerning the y-coordinate. CONCLUSIONS: We found a considerable variability of the location of atlas-based target points of the ventralis intermedius nucleus in relation to neighbouring major fibre tracts in individual patients. These results suggest that individualised targeting to structures not directly visible on conventional MRI is necessary.
Authors: Kalen J Petersen; Jacqueline A Reid; Srijata Chakravorti; Meher R Juttukonda; Giulia Franco; Paula Trujillo; Adam J Stark; Benoit M Dawant; Manus J Donahue; Daniel O Claassen Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2018-05-04 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Timothy R Miller; Jiachen Zhuo; Howard M Eisenberg; Paul S Fishman; Elias R Melhem; Rao Gullapalli; Dheeraj Gandhi Journal: Neuroradiol J Date: 2019-08-13
Authors: Alexandre Boutet; Robert Gramer; Christopher J Steele; Gavin J B Elias; Jürgen Germann; Ricardo Maciel; Walter Kucharczyk; Ludvic Zrinzo; Andres M Lozano; Alfonso Fasano Journal: Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep Date: 2019-05-30 Impact factor: 5.081
Authors: Vance T Lehman; Kendall H Lee; Bryan T Klassen; Daniel J Blezek; Abhinav Goyal; Bhavya R Shah; Krzysztof R Gorny; John Huston; Timothy J Kaufmann Journal: Neurosurg Focus Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 4.047
Authors: YiZi Xiao; Laura M Zitella; Yuval Duchin; Benjamin A Teplitzky; Daniel Kastl; Gregor Adriany; Essa Yacoub; Noam Harel; Matthew D Johnson Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2016-06-10 Impact factor: 4.677
Authors: András Jakab; Beat Werner; Marco Piccirelli; Kázmér Kovács; Ernst Martin; John S Thornton; Tarek Yousry; Gabor Szekely; Ruth O'Gorman Tuura Journal: Front Neuroanat Date: 2016-07-12 Impact factor: 3.856
Authors: Francesco Sammartino; Vibhor Krishna; Nicolas Kon Kam King; Andres M Lozano; Michael L Schwartz; Yuexi Huang; Mojgan Hodaie Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2016-05-23 Impact factor: 10.338