OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of intraoperative computed tomography (iCT) in localizing deep brain stimulation (DBS) electrodes by comparing this modality with postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). BACKGROUND: Optimal lead placement is a critical factor for the outcome of DBS procedures and preferably confirmed during surgery. iCT offers 3-dimensional verification of both microelectrode and lead location during DBS surgery. However, accurate electrode representation on iCT has not been extensively studied. METHODS: DBS surgery was performed using the Leksell stereotactic G frame. Stereotactic coordinates of 52 DBS leads were determined on both iCT and postoperative MRI and compared with intended final target coordinates. The resulting absolute differences in X (medial-lateral), Y (anterior-posterior), and Z (dorsal-ventral) coordinates (ΔX, ΔY, and ΔZ) for both modalities were then used to calculate the euclidean distance. RESULTS: Euclidean distances were 2.7 ± 1.1 and 2.5 ± 1.2 mm for MRI and iCT, respectively (p = 0.2). CONCLUSION: Postoperative MRI and iCT show equivalent DBS lead representation. Intraoperative localization of both microelectrode and DBS lead in stereotactic space enables direct adjustments. Verification of lead placement with postoperative MRI, considered to be the gold standard, is unnecessary.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of intraoperative computed tomography (iCT) in localizing deep brain stimulation (DBS) electrodes by comparing this modality with postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). BACKGROUND: Optimal lead placement is a critical factor for the outcome of DBS procedures and preferably confirmed during surgery. iCT offers 3-dimensional verification of both microelectrode and lead location during DBS surgery. However, accurate electrode representation on iCT has not been extensively studied. METHODS: DBS surgery was performed using the Leksell stereotactic G frame. Stereotactic coordinates of 52 DBS leads were determined on both iCT and postoperative MRI and compared with intended final target coordinates. The resulting absolute differences in X (medial-lateral), Y (anterior-posterior), and Z (dorsal-ventral) coordinates (ΔX, ΔY, and ΔZ) for both modalities were then used to calculate the euclidean distance. RESULTS: Euclidean distances were 2.7 ± 1.1 and 2.5 ± 1.2 mm for MRI and iCT, respectively (p = 0.2). CONCLUSION: Postoperative MRI and iCT show equivalent DBS lead representation. Intraoperative localization of both microelectrode and DBS lead in stereotactic space enables direct adjustments. Verification of lead placement with postoperative MRI, considered to be the gold standard, is unnecessary.
Authors: Leo Verhagen Metman; Julie G Pilitsis; Glenn T Stebbins; Maarten Bot; Roy A E Bakay Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2012-06-12 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Pepijn van den Munckhof; M Fiorella Contarino; Lo J Bour; Johannes D Speelman; Rob M A de Bie; P Richard Schuurman Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Jens Volkmann; Joerg Mueller; Günther Deuschl; Andrea A Kühn; Joachim K Krauss; Werner Poewe; Lars Timmermann; Daniela Falk; Andreas Kupsch; Anatol Kivi; Gerd-Helge Schneider; Alfons Schnitzler; Martin Südmeyer; Jürgen Voges; Alexander Wolters; Matthias Wittstock; Jan-Uwe Müller; Sascha Hering; Wilhelm Eisner; Jan Vesper; Thomas Prokop; Marcus Pinsker; Christoph Schrader; Manja Kloss; Karl Kiening; Kai Boetzel; Jan Mehrkens; Inger Marie Skogseid; Jon Ramm-Pettersen; Georg Kemmler; Kailash P Bhatia; Jerrold L Vitek; Reiner Benecke Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2014-08-07 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Rozemarije A Holewijn; Maarten Bot; Pepijn van den Munckhof; P Richard Schuurman Journal: Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Naomi I Kremer; D L Marinus Oterdoom; Peter Jan van Laar; Dan Piña-Fuentes; Teus van Laar; Gea Drost; Arjen L J van Hulzen; J Marc C van Dijk Journal: Neuromodulation Date: 2019-01-10