PURPOSE: Orientating the angle of directional leads for deep brain stimulation (DBS) in an axial plane introduces a new degree of freedom that is indicated by embedded anisotropic directional markers. Our aim was to develop algorithms to determine lead orientation angles from computed tomography (CT) and stereotactic x-ray imaging using standard clinical protocols, and subsequently assess the accuracy of both methods. METHODS: In CT the anisotropic marker artifact was taken as a signature of the lead orientation angle and analyzed using discrete Fourier transform of circular intensity profiles. The orientation angle was determined from phase angles at a frequency 2/360° and corrected for aberrations at oblique leads. In x-ray imaging, frontal and lateral images were registered to stereotactic space and sub-images containing directional markers were extracted. These images were compared with projection images of an identically located virtual marker at different orientation angles. A similarity index was calculated and used to determine the lead orientation angle. Both methods were tested using epoxy phantoms containing directional leads (Cartesia™, Boston Scientific, Marlborough, USA) with known orientation. Anthropomorphic phantoms were used to compare both methods for DBS cases. RESULTS: Mean deviation between CT and x-ray was 1.5° ± 3.6° (range: -2.3° to 7.9°) for epoxy phantoms and 3.6° ± 7.1° (range: -5.6° to 14.6°) for anthropomorphic phantoms. After correction for imperfections in the epoxy phantoms, the mean deviation from ground truth was 0.0° ± 5.0° (range: -12° to 14°) for x-ray. For CT the results depended on the polar angle of the lead in the scanner. Mean deviation was -0.3° ± 1.9° (range: -4.6° to 6.6°) or 1.6° ± 8.9° (range: -23° to 34°) for polar angles ≤ 40° or > 40°. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that both imaging modalities can be used to determine lead orientation angles with high accuracy. CT is superior to x-ray imaging, but oblique leads (polar angle > 40°) show limited precision due to the current design of the directional marker.
PURPOSE: Orientating the angle of directional leads for deep brain stimulation (DBS) in an axial plane introduces a new degree of freedom that is indicated by embedded anisotropic directional markers. Our aim was to develop algorithms to determine lead orientation angles from computed tomography (CT) and stereotactic x-ray imaging using standard clinical protocols, and subsequently assess the accuracy of both methods. METHODS: In CT the anisotropic marker artifact was taken as a signature of the lead orientation angle and analyzed using discrete Fourier transform of circular intensity profiles. The orientation angle was determined from phase angles at a frequency 2/360° and corrected for aberrations at oblique leads. In x-ray imaging, frontal and lateral images were registered to stereotactic space and sub-images containing directional markers were extracted. These images were compared with projection images of an identically located virtual marker at different orientation angles. A similarity index was calculated and used to determine the lead orientation angle. Both methods were tested using epoxy phantoms containing directional leads (Cartesia™, Boston Scientific, Marlborough, USA) with known orientation. Anthropomorphic phantoms were used to compare both methods for DBS cases. RESULTS: Mean deviation between CT and x-ray was 1.5° ± 3.6° (range: -2.3° to 7.9°) for epoxy phantoms and 3.6° ± 7.1° (range: -5.6° to 14.6°) for anthropomorphic phantoms. After correction for imperfections in the epoxy phantoms, the mean deviation from ground truth was 0.0° ± 5.0° (range: -12° to 14°) for x-ray. For CT the results depended on the polar angle of the lead in the scanner. Mean deviation was -0.3° ± 1.9° (range: -4.6° to 6.6°) or 1.6° ± 8.9° (range: -23° to 34°) for polar angles ≤ 40° or > 40°. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that both imaging modalities can be used to determine lead orientation angles with high accuracy. CT is superior to x-ray imaging, but oblique leads (polar angle > 40°) show limited precision due to the current design of the directional marker.
Authors: Edgar Peña; Simeng Zhang; Remi Patriat; Joshua E Aman; Jerrold L Vitek; Noam Harel; Matthew D Johnson Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2018-09-13 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: Y Nagayama; S Tanoue; S Oda; D Sakabe; T Emoto; M Kidoh; H Uetani; A Sasao; T Nakaura; O Ikeda; K Yamada; Y Yamashita Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-12-26 Impact factor: 3.825
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: Andreas Horn; Ningfei Li; Till A Dembek; Ari Kappel; Chadwick Boulay; Siobhan Ewert; Anna Tietze; Andreas Husch; Thushara Perera; Wolf-Julian Neumann; Marco Reisert; Hang Si; Robert Oostenveld; Christopher Rorden; Fang-Cheng Yeh; Qianqian Fang; Todd M Herrington; Johannes Vorwerk; Andrea A Kühn Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Chet Preston; Alexander M Alvarez; Andres Barragan; Jennifer Becker; Willard S Kasoff; Russell S Witte Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2020-02-27 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: T A Khoa Nguyen; Milan Djilas; Andreas Nowacki; André Mercanzini; Michael Schüpbach; Philipp Renaud; Claudio Pollo Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-06-19 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Joachim K Krauss; Nir Lipsman; Tipu Aziz; Alexandre Boutet; Peter Brown; Jin Woo Chang; Benjamin Davidson; Warren M Grill; Marwan I Hariz; Andreas Horn; Michael Schulder; Antonios Mammis; Peter A Tass; Jens Volkmann; Andres M Lozano Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2020-11-26 Impact factor: 42.937
Authors: Aristide Merola; Alberto Romagnolo; Vibhor Krishna; Srivatsan Pallavaram; Stephen Carcieri; Steven Goetz; George Mandybur; Andrew P Duker; Brian Dalm; John D Rolston; Alfonso Fasano; Leo Verhagen Journal: Neurol Ther Date: 2020-03-09