Mikhail Milchenko1, Abraham Z Snyder2, Meghan C Campbell2, Joshua L Dowling3, Keith M Rich3, Lindsey M Brier1, Joel S Perlmutter4, Scott A Norris5. 1. Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Department of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, (CB 8225), 660 S. Euclid Avenue, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA. 2. Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Department of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, (CB 8225), 660 S. Euclid Avenue, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA; Department of Neurology, Washington University School of Medicine, (CB 8111), 660 S. Euclid Avenue, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA. 3. Department of Neurosurgical Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, (CB 8057), 660 S. Euclid Avenue, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA. 4. Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Department of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, (CB 8225), 660 S. Euclid Avenue, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA; Department of Neurology, Washington University School of Medicine, (CB 8111), 660 S. Euclid Avenue, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA; Department of Neurosurgical Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, (CB 8057), 660 S. Euclid Avenue, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA; Department of Neuroscience, Washington University School of Medicine, (CB 8108), 660 S. Euclid Avenue, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA; Department of Occupational Therapy, CB 8505, 4444 Forest Park Ave, St. Louis, MO 63108, USA; Department of Physical Therapy, CB 8502, 4444 Forest Park Ave, St. Louis, MO, 63108, USA. 5. Department of Neurology, Washington University School of Medicine, (CB 8111), 660 S. Euclid Avenue, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA. Electronic address: norriss@wustl.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the subthalamic nucleus produces variable effects in Parkinson disease. Variation may result from different electrode positions relative to target. Thus, precise electrode localization is crucial when investigating DBS effects. NEW METHOD: We developed a semi-automated method, Electrode Shaft Modeling in CT images (ESM-CT) to reconstruct DBS lead trajectories and contact locations. We evaluated methodological sensitivity to operator-dependent steps, robustness to image resampling, and test-retest replicability. ESM-CT was applied in 56 patients to study electrode position change (and relation to time between scans, postoperative subdural air volume, and head tilt during acquisition) between images acquired immediately post-implantation (DBS-CT) and months later (DEL-CT). RESULTS: Electrode tip localization was robust to image resampling and replicable to within ∼ 0.2 mm on test-retest comparisons. Systematic electrode displacement occurred rostral-ventral-lateral between DBS-CT and DEL-CT scans. Head angle was a major explanatory factor (p < 0.001,Pearson's r = 0.46, both sides) and volume of subdural air weakly predicted electrode displacement (p = 0.02,r = 0.29:p = 0.1,r = 0.25 for left:right). Modeled shaft curvature was slightly greater in DEL-CT. Magnitude of displacement and degree of curvature were independent of elapsed time between scans. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHODS: Comparison of ESM-CT against two existing methods revealed systematic differences in one coordinate (1 ± 0.3 mm,p < 0.001) for one method and in three coordinates for another method (x:0.1 ± 0.1 mm, y:0.4 ± 0.2 mm, z:0.4 ± 0.2 mm, p < 10-10). Within-method coordinate variability across participants is similar. CONCLUSION: We describe a robust and precise method for CT DBS contact localization. Application revealed that acquisition head angle significantly impacts electrode position. DBS localization schemes should account for head angle.
BACKGROUND: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the subthalamic nucleus produces variable effects in Parkinson disease. Variation may result from different electrode positions relative to target. Thus, precise electrode localization is crucial when investigating DBS effects. NEW METHOD: We developed a semi-automated method, Electrode Shaft Modeling in CT images (ESM-CT) to reconstruct DBS lead trajectories and contact locations. We evaluated methodological sensitivity to operator-dependent steps, robustness to image resampling, and test-retest replicability. ESM-CT was applied in 56 patients to study electrode position change (and relation to time between scans, postoperative subdural air volume, and head tilt during acquisition) between images acquired immediately post-implantation (DBS-CT) and months later (DEL-CT). RESULTS: Electrode tip localization was robust to image resampling and replicable to within ∼ 0.2 mm on test-retest comparisons. Systematic electrode displacement occurred rostral-ventral-lateral between DBS-CT and DEL-CT scans. Head angle was a major explanatory factor (p < 0.001,Pearson's r = 0.46, both sides) and volume of subdural air weakly predicted electrode displacement (p = 0.02,r = 0.29:p = 0.1,r = 0.25 for left:right). Modeled shaft curvature was slightly greater in DEL-CT. Magnitude of displacement and degree of curvature were independent of elapsed time between scans. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHODS: Comparison of ESM-CT against two existing methods revealed systematic differences in one coordinate (1 ± 0.3 mm,p < 0.001) for one method and in three coordinates for another method (x:0.1 ± 0.1 mm, y:0.4 ± 0.2 mm, z:0.4 ± 0.2 mm, p < 10-10). Within-method coordinate variability across participants is similar. CONCLUSION: We describe a robust and precise method for CT DBS contact localization. Application revealed that acquisition head angle significantly impacts electrode position. DBS localization schemes should account for head angle.
Authors: Tamara Hershey; Meghan C Campbell; Tom O Videen; Heather M Lugar; Patrick M Weaver; Johanna Hartlein; Morvarid Karimi; Samer D Tabbal; Joel S Perlmutter Journal: Brain Date: 2010-09-20 Impact factor: 13.501
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: Günther Deuschl; Carmen Schade-Brittinger; Paul Krack; Jens Volkmann; Helmut Schäfer; Kai Bötzel; Christine Daniels; Angela Deutschländer; Ulrich Dillmann; Wilhelm Eisner; Doreen Gruber; Wolfgang Hamel; Jan Herzog; Rüdiger Hilker; Stephan Klebe; Manja Kloss; Jan Koy; Martin Krause; Andreas Kupsch; Delia Lorenz; Stefan Lorenzl; H Maximilian Mehdorn; Jean Richard Moringlane; Wolfgang Oertel; Marcus O Pinsker; Heinz Reichmann; Alexander Reuss; Gerd-Helge Schneider; Alfons Schnitzler; Ulrich Steude; Volker Sturm; Lars Timmermann; Volker Tronnier; Thomas Trottenberg; Lars Wojtecki; Elisabeth Wolf; Werner Poewe; Jürgen Voges Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-08-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Shearwood McClelland; Blair Ford; Patrick B Senatus; Linda M Winfield; Yunling E Du; Seth L Pullman; Qiping Yu; Steven J Frucht; Guy M McKhann; Robert R Goodman Journal: Neurosurg Focus Date: 2005-11-15 Impact factor: 4.047
Authors: Karl A Sillay; L M Kumbier; C Ross; M Brady; A Alexander; A Gupta; N Adluru; G S Miranpuri; J C Williams Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2012-09-26 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: Mikhail Milchenko; Scott A Norris; Kathleen Poston; Meghan C Campbell; Mwiza Ushe; Joel S Perlmutter; Abraham Z Snyder Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2018-01-08
Authors: Takashi Morishita; Justin D Hilliard; Michael S Okun; Dan Neal; Kelsey A Nestor; David Peace; Alden A Hozouri; Mark R Davidson; Francis J Bova; Justin M Sporrer; Genko Oyama; Kelly D Foote Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-09-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: John R Younce; Meghan C Campbell; Tamara Hershey; Aaron B Tanenbaum; Mikhail Milchenko; Mwiza Ushe; Morvarid Karimi; Samer D Tabbal; Albert E Kim; Abraham Z Snyder; Joel S Perlmutter; Scott A Norris Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2020-11-19 Impact factor: 10.338
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