Literature DB >> 27093443

Comparison of Deep Brain Stimulation Lead Targeting Accuracy and Procedure Duration between 1.5- and 3-Tesla Interventional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Systems: An Initial 12-Month Experience.

Derek G Southwell1, Jared A Narvid, Alastair J Martin, Salman E Qasim, Philip A Starr, Paul S Larson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Interventional magnetic resonance imaging (iMRI) allows deep brain stimulator lead placement under general anesthesia. While the accuracy of lead targeting has been described for iMRI systems utilizing 1.5-tesla magnets, a similar assessment of 3-tesla iMRI procedures has not been performed.
OBJECTIVE: To compare targeting accuracy, the number of lead targeting attempts, and surgical duration between procedures performed on 1.5- and 3-tesla iMRI systems.
METHODS: Radial targeting error, the number of targeting attempts, and procedure duration were compared between surgeries performed on 1.5- and 3-tesla iMRI systems (SmartFrame and ClearPoint systems).
RESULTS: During the first year of operation of each system, 26 consecutive leads were implanted using the 1.5-tesla system, and 23 consecutive leads were implanted using the 3-tesla system. There was no significant difference in radial error (Mann-Whitney test, p = 0.26), number of lead placements that required multiple targeting attempts (Fisher's exact test, p = 0.59), or bilateral procedure durations between surgeries performed with the two systems (p = 0.15).
CONCLUSIONS: Accurate DBS lead targeting can be achieved with iMRI systems utilizing either 1.5- or 3-tesla magnets. The use of a 3-tesla magnet, however, offers improved visualization of the target structures and allows comparable accuracy and efficiency of placement at the selected targets.
© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27093443     DOI: 10.1159/000443407

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stereotact Funct Neurosurg        ISSN: 1011-6125            Impact factor:   1.875


  5 in total

1.  Optimizing the deep brain stimulation care pathway in patients with Parkinson's disease.

Authors:  N J Thomas; P Mertens; T Danaila; G Polo; H Klinger; E Broussolle; S Thobois
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  2017-06-19       Impact factor: 4.849

Review 2.  Automated neurosurgical stereotactic planning for intraoperative use: a comprehensive review of the literature and perspectives.

Authors:  Marc Zanello; Romain Carron; Sophie Peeters; Pietro Gori; Alexandre Roux; Isabelle Bloch; Catherine Oppenheim; Johan Pallud
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2020-05-20       Impact factor: 3.042

3.  A comparative study of asleep and awake deep brain stimulation robot-assisted surgery for Parkinson's disease.

Authors:  Hai Jin; Shun Gong; Xiao Sun; Yingqun Tao; Hua Huo; Dandan Song; Ming Xu; Zhaozhu Xu; Yang Liu; Shimiao Wang; Lijia Yuan; Tingting Wang; Weilong Song; He Pan
Journal:  NPJ Parkinsons Dis       Date:  2020-10-05

4.  Deep Learning-Based Deep Brain Stimulation Targeting and Clinical Applications.

Authors:  Seong-Cheol Park; Joon Hyuk Cha; Seonhwa Lee; Wooyoung Jang; Chong Sik Lee; Jung Kyo Lee
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2019-10-24       Impact factor: 4.677

5.  Outcomes of Interventional-MRI Versus Microelectrode Recording-Guided Subthalamic Deep Brain Stimulation.

Authors:  Philip S Lee; Gregory M Weiner; Danielle Corson; Jessica Kappel; Yue-Fang Chang; Valerie R Suski; Sarah B Berman; Houman Homayoun; Amber D Van Laar; Donald J Crammond; R Mark Richardson
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2018-04-11       Impact factor: 4.003

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.