Andrea Spyrantis1, Adriano Cattani2, Tirza Woebbecke2, Jürgen Konczalla2, Adam Strzelczyk3, Felix Rosenow3, Marlies Wagner4, Volker Seifert2, Manfred Kudernatsch5, Thomas M Freiman6. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Frankfurt - Goethe-University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Electronic address: andrea.spyrantis@kgu.de. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Frankfurt - Goethe-University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. 3. Epilepsy Center Frankfurt Rhine-Main and Department of Neurology, University Hospital Frankfurt - Goethe-University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; LOEWE Center for Personalized Translational Epilepsy Research (CePTER), Goethe-University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. 4. Department of Neuroradiology, University Hospital Frankfurt - Goethe-University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; LOEWE Center for Personalized Translational Epilepsy Research (CePTER), Goethe-University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. 5. Department of Neurosurgery, Schoen Klinik, Vogtareuth, Germany. 6. Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Frankfurt - Goethe-University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; LOEWE Center for Personalized Translational Epilepsy Research (CePTER), Goethe-University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Precise robotic or stereotactic implantation of stereoelectroencephalography (sEEG) electrodes relies on the exact referencing of the planning images in order to match the patient's anatomy to the stereotactic device or robot. We compared the accuracy of sEEG electrode implantation with stereotactic frame versus laser scanning of the face based on computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) datasets for referencing. METHODS: The accuracy was determined by calculating the Euclidian distance between the planned trajectory and the postoperative position of the sEEG electrode, defining the entry point error (EPE) and the target point error (TPE). The sEEG electrodes (n = 171) were implanted with the robotic surgery assistant (ROSA) in 19 patients. Preoperative trajectory planning was performed on three-dimensional (3D) MRI datasets. Referencing was accomplished either by performing (A) 1.25-mm slice CT with the patient's head fixed in a Leksell stereotactic frame (CT-frame, n = 49), fused with a 3D-T1-weighted, contrast enhanced- and T2-weighted 1.5 Tesla (T) MRI; (B) 1.25 mm CT (CT-laser, n = 60), fused with 3D-3.0-T MRI; (C) 3.0-T MRI T1-based laser scan (3.0-T MRI-laser, n = 56) or (D) in one single patient, because of a pacemaker, 3D-1.5-T MRI T1-based laser scan (1.5-T MRI-laser, n = 6). RESULTS: In (A) CT-frame referencing, the mean EPE amounted to 0.86 mm and the mean TPE amounted to 2.28 mm (n = 49). In (B) CT-laser referencing, the EPE amounted to 1.85 mm and the TPE to 2.41 mm (n = 60). In (C) 3.0-T MRI-laser referencing, the mean EPE amounted to 3.02 mm and the mean TPE to 3.51 mm (n = 56). In (D) 1.5-T MRI, surprisingly the mean EPE amounted only to 0.97 mm and the TPE to 1.71 mm (n = 6). In 3 cases using CT-laser and 1 case using 3.0 T MRI-laser for referencing, small asymptomatic intracerebral hemorrhages were detected. No further complications were observed. CONCLUSION: Robot-guided sEEG electrode implantation using CT-frame referencing and CT-laser-based referencing is most accurate and can serve for high precision placement of electrodes. In contrast, 3.0-T MRI-laser-based referencing is less accurate, but saves radiation. Most trajectories can be reached if alternative routes over less vascularized brain areas are used. This article is part of the Special Issue "Individualized Epilepsy Management: Medicines, Surgery and Beyond".
BACKGROUND: Precise robotic or stereotactic implantation of stereoelectroencephalography (sEEG) electrodes relies on the exact referencing of the planning images in order to match the patient's anatomy to the stereotactic device or robot. We compared the accuracy of sEEG electrode implantation with stereotactic frame versus laser scanning of the face based on computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) datasets for referencing. METHODS: The accuracy was determined by calculating the Euclidian distance between the planned trajectory and the postoperative position of the sEEG electrode, defining the entry point error (EPE) and the target point error (TPE). The sEEG electrodes (n = 171) were implanted with the robotic surgery assistant (ROSA) in 19 patients. Preoperative trajectory planning was performed on three-dimensional (3D) MRI datasets. Referencing was accomplished either by performing (A) 1.25-mm slice CT with the patient's head fixed in a Leksell stereotactic frame (CT-frame, n = 49), fused with a 3D-T1-weighted, contrast enhanced- and T2-weighted 1.5 Tesla (T) MRI; (B) 1.25 mm CT (CT-laser, n = 60), fused with 3D-3.0-T MRI; (C) 3.0-T MRI T1-based laser scan (3.0-T MRI-laser, n = 56) or (D) in one single patient, because of a pacemaker, 3D-1.5-T MRI T1-based laser scan (1.5-T MRI-laser, n = 6). RESULTS: In (A) CT-frame referencing, the mean EPE amounted to 0.86 mm and the mean TPE amounted to 2.28 mm (n = 49). In (B) CT-laser referencing, the EPE amounted to 1.85 mm and the TPE to 2.41 mm (n = 60). In (C) 3.0-T MRI-laser referencing, the mean EPE amounted to 3.02 mm and the mean TPE to 3.51 mm (n = 56). In (D) 1.5-T MRI, surprisingly the mean EPE amounted only to 0.97 mm and the TPE to 1.71 mm (n = 6). In 3 cases using CT-laser and 1 case using 3.0 T MRI-laser for referencing, small asymptomatic intracerebral hemorrhages were detected. No further complications were observed. CONCLUSION: Robot-guided sEEG electrode implantation using CT-frame referencing and CT-laser-based referencing is most accurate and can serve for high precision placement of electrodes. In contrast, 3.0-T MRI-laser-based referencing is less accurate, but saves radiation. Most trajectories can be reached if alternative routes over less vascularized brain areas are used. This article is part of the Special Issue "Individualized Epilepsy Management: Medicines, Surgery and Beyond".
Authors: Barbara Ladisich; Lukas Machegger; Alexander Romagna; Herbert Krainz; Jürgen Steinbacher; Markus Leitinger; Gudrun Kalss; Niklas Thon; Eugen Trinka; Peter A Winkler; Christoph Schwartz Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2021-02-13 Impact factor: 2.216
Authors: Andrea Spyrantis; Tirza Woebbecke; Daniel Rueß; Anne Constantinescu; Andreas Gierich; Klaus Luyken; Veerle Visser-Vandewalle; Eva Herrmann; Florian Gessler; Marcus Czabanka; Harald Treuer; Maximilian Ruge; Thomas M Freiman Journal: Front Neurorobot Date: 2022-03-25 Impact factor: 3.493
Authors: Christian Dorfer; Bertil Rydenhag; Gordon Baltuch; Vivek Buch; Jeffrey Blount; Robert Bollo; Jason Gerrard; Daniel Nilsson; Karl Roessler; James Rutka; Ashwini Sharan; Dennis Spencer; Arthur Cukiert Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2020-03-29 Impact factor: 6.740