Anthony J Tyndall1, Julia Reinhardt1, Volker Tronnier2, Luigi Mariani3, Christoph Stippich4. 1. Division of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Luebeck Campus, Luebeck, Germany. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospitals Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 4. Division of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland. Christoph.Stippich@usb.ch.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To analyse the long-term feasibility and limitations of presurgical fMRI in a cohort of tumour and epilepsy patients with different MR-scanners at 1.5 and 3.0 T. METHODS: Four hundred and ninety-one consecutive patients undergoing presurgical fMRI between 2000 and 2012 on five different MR-scanners using established paradigms and semi-automated data processing were included. Success rates of task performance and BOLD-activation were determined for motor and somatosensory somatotopic mapping and language localisation. Procedural success, failures and imaging artifacts were analysed. MR-field strengths were compared. RESULTS: Two thousand three hundred fifteen of 2348 (98.6 %) attempted paradigms (1033 motor, 1220 speech, 95 somatosensory) were successfully performed. 100 paradigms (4.3 %) were repetition runs. 23 speech, 6 motor and 2 sensory paradigms failed for non-compliance and technical issues. Most language paradigm failures were noted in overt sentence generation. Average significant BOLD-activation was higher for motor than language paradigms (95.8 vs. 81.6 %). Most language paradigms showed significantly higher activation rates at 3 T compared to 1.5 T, whereas no significant difference was found for motor paradigms. CONCLUSIONS: fMRI proved very robust for the presurgical localisation of the different motor and somatosensory body representations, as well as Broca's and Wernicke's language areas across different MR-scanners at 1.5 and 3.0 T over 13 years. KEY POINTS: • Standardised presurgical motor and language fMRI is robust across various MRI platforms. • Motor fMRI is less dependent on field strength than language fMRI. • fMRI task failures are relatively low and are reduced by paradigm repetition.
OBJECTIVES: To analyse the long-term feasibility and limitations of presurgical fMRI in a cohort of tumour and epilepsypatients with different MR-scanners at 1.5 and 3.0 T. METHODS: Four hundred and ninety-one consecutive patients undergoing presurgical fMRI between 2000 and 2012 on five different MR-scanners using established paradigms and semi-automated data processing were included. Success rates of task performance and BOLD-activation were determined for motor and somatosensory somatotopic mapping and language localisation. Procedural success, failures and imaging artifacts were analysed. MR-field strengths were compared. RESULTS: Two thousand three hundred fifteen of 2348 (98.6 %) attempted paradigms (1033 motor, 1220 speech, 95 somatosensory) were successfully performed. 100 paradigms (4.3 %) were repetition runs. 23 speech, 6 motor and 2 sensory paradigms failed for non-compliance and technical issues. Most language paradigm failures were noted in overt sentence generation. Average significant BOLD-activation was higher for motor than language paradigms (95.8 vs. 81.6 %). Most language paradigms showed significantly higher activation rates at 3 T compared to 1.5 T, whereas no significant difference was found for motor paradigms. CONCLUSIONS: fMRI proved very robust for the presurgical localisation of the different motor and somatosensory body representations, as well as Broca's and Wernicke's language areas across different MR-scanners at 1.5 and 3.0 T over 13 years. KEY POINTS: • Standardised presurgical motor and language fMRI is robust across various MRI platforms. • Motor fMRI is less dependent on field strength than language fMRI. • fMRI task failures are relatively low and are reduced by paradigm repetition.
Authors: D L Hill; A D Smith; A Simmons; C R Maurer; T C Cox; R Elwes; M Brammer; D J Hawkes; C E Polkey Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: D B FitzGerald; G R Cosgrove; S Ronner; H Jiang; B R Buchbinder; J W Belliveau; B R Rosen; R R Benson Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 1997-09 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Joshua S Shimony; Dongyang Zhang; James M Johnston; Michael D Fox; Abhik Roy; Eric C Leuthardt Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: David G Ellis; Matthew L White; Satoru Hayasaka; David E Warren; Tony W Wilson; Michele R Aizenberg Journal: Neurosurg Focus Date: 2020-02-01 Impact factor: 4.047
Authors: Ji Young Lee; Yangsean Choi; Kook Jin Ahn; Yoonho Nam; Jin Hee Jang; Hyun Seok Choi; So Lyung Jung; Bum Soo Kim Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2018-12-27 Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: Marko Wilke; Samuel Groeschel; Anna Lorenzen; Sabine Rona; Martin U Schuhmann; Ulrike Ernemann; Ingeborg Krägeloh-Mann Journal: Ann Clin Transl Neurol Date: 2018-09-27 Impact factor: 4.511
Authors: J Martijn Jansma; Geert-Jan Rutten; Lenny E Ramsey; T J Snijders; Alberto Bizzi; Katharina Rosengarth; Frank Dodoo-Schittko; Elke Hattingen; Mar Jiménez de la Peña; Gord von Campe; Margit Jehna; Nick F Ramsey Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2020-08-18 Impact factor: 2.804