Intraoperative image updating for brain shift following dural opening.

OBJECTIVE Preoperative magnetic resonance images (pMR) are typically coregistered to provide intraoperative navigation, the accuracy of which can be significantly compromised by brain deformation. In this study, the authors generated updated MR images (uMR) in the operating room (OR) to compensate for brain shift due to dural opening, and evaluated the accuracy and computational efficiency of the process. METHODS In 20 open cranial neurosurgical cases, a pair of intraoperative stereovision (iSV) images was acquired after dural opening to reconstruct a 3D profile of the exposed cortical surface. The iSV surface was registered with pMR to detect cortical displacements that were assimilated by a biomechanical model to estimate whole-brain nonrigid deformation and produce uMR in the OR. The uMR views were displayed on a commercial navigation system and compared side by side with the corresponding coregistered pMR. A tracked stylus was used to acquire coordinate locations of features on the cortical surface that served as independent positions for calculating target registration errors (TREs) for the coregistered uMR and pMR image volumes. RESULTS The uMR views were visually more accurate and well aligned with the iSV surface in terms of both geometry and texture compared with pMR where misalignment was evident. The average misfit between model estimates and measured displacements was 1.80 ± 0.35 mm, compared with the average initial misfit of 7.10 ± 2.78 mm between iSV and pMR, and the average TRE was 1.60 ± 0.43 mm across the 20 patients in the uMR image volume, compared with 7.31 ± 2.82 mm on average in the pMR cases. The iSV also proved to be accurate with an average error of 1.20 ± 0.37 mm. The overall computational time required to generate the uMR views was 7-8 minutes. CONCLUSIONS This study compensated for brain deformation caused by intraoperative dural opening using computational model-based assimilation of iSV cortical surface displacements. The uMR proved to be more accurate in terms of model-data misfit and TRE in the 20 patient cases evaluated relative to pMR. The computational time was acceptable (7-8 minutes) and the process caused minimal interruption of surgical workflow.