Andrew I Yang1, Drew Parker2, Anupa A Vijayakumari2, Ashwin G Ramayya1, Melanie P Donley-Fletcher3, Darien Aunapu2, Ronald L Wolf4, Gordon H Baltuch1, Ragini Verma1,2,4. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 2. DiCIPHR (Diffusion and Connectomics in Precision Healthcare Research) Lab, Department of Radiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 3. Specialty Care Inc, Brentwood, Tennessee, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ventral intermediate (VIM) thalamic nucleus is the main target for the surgical treatment of refractory tremor. Initial targeting traditionally relies on atlas-based stereotactic targeting formulas, which only minimally account for individual anatomy. Alternative approaches have been proposed, including direct targeting of the dentato-rubro-thalamic tract (DRTT), which, in clinical settings, is generally reconstructed with deterministic tracking. Whether more advanced probabilistic techniques are feasible on clinical-grade magnetic resonance acquisitions and lead to enhanced reconstructions is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To compare DRTT reconstructed with deterministic vs probabilistic tracking. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of 19 patients with essential tremor who underwent deep brain stimulation (DBS) with intraoperative neurophysiology and stimulation testing. We assessed the proximity of the DRTT to the DBS lead and to the active contact chosen based on clinical response. RESULTS: In the commissural plane, the deterministic DRTT was anterior (P < 10-4) and lateral (P < 10-4) to the DBS lead. By contrast, although the probabilistic DRTT was also anterior to the lead (P < 10-4), there was no difference in the mediolateral dimension (P = .5). Moreover, the 3-dimensional Euclidean distance from the active contact to the probabilistic DRTT was smaller vs the distance to the deterministic DRTT (3.32 ± 1.70 mm vs 5.01 ± 2.12 mm; P < 10-4). CONCLUSION: DRTT reconstructed with probabilistic fiber tracking was superior in spatial proximity to the physiology-guided DBS lead and to the empirically chosen active contact. These data inform strategies for surgical targeting of the VIM.
BACKGROUND: The ventral intermediate (VIM) thalamic nucleus is the main target for the surgical treatment of refractory tremor. Initial targeting traditionally relies on atlas-based stereotactic targeting formulas, which only minimally account for individual anatomy. Alternative approaches have been proposed, including direct targeting of the dentato-rubro-thalamic tract (DRTT), which, in clinical settings, is generally reconstructed with deterministic tracking. Whether more advanced probabilistic techniques are feasible on clinical-grade magnetic resonance acquisitions and lead to enhanced reconstructions is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To compare DRTT reconstructed with deterministic vs probabilistic tracking. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of 19 patients with essential tremor who underwent deep brain stimulation (DBS) with intraoperative neurophysiology and stimulation testing. We assessed the proximity of the DRTT to the DBS lead and to the active contact chosen based on clinical response. RESULTS: In the commissural plane, the deterministic DRTT was anterior (P < 10-4) and lateral (P < 10-4) to the DBS lead. By contrast, although the probabilistic DRTT was also anterior to the lead (P < 10-4), there was no difference in the mediolateral dimension (P = .5). Moreover, the 3-dimensional Euclidean distance from the active contact to the probabilistic DRTT was smaller vs the distance to the deterministic DRTT (3.32 ± 1.70 mm vs 5.01 ± 2.12 mm; P < 10-4). CONCLUSION: DRTT reconstructed with probabilistic fiber tracking was superior in spatial proximity to the physiology-guided DBS lead and to the empirically chosen active contact. These data inform strategies for surgical targeting of the VIM.
Authors: Paul A Yushkevich; Joseph Piven; Heather Cody Hazlett; Rachel Gimpel Smith; Sean Ho; James C Gee; Guido Gerig Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2006-03-20 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Brian B Avants; Nicholas J Tustison; Gang Song; Philip A Cook; Arno Klein; James C Gee Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2010-09-17 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: A L Benabid; P Pollak; C Gervason; D Hoffmann; D M Gao; M Hommel; J E Perret; J de Rougemont Journal: Lancet Date: 1991-02-16 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Svjetlana Miocinovic; Scott F Lempka; Gary S Russo; Christopher B Maks; Christopher R Butson; Ken E Sakaie; Jerrold L Vitek; Cameron C McIntyre Journal: Exp Neurol Date: 2008-12-11 Impact factor: 5.330
Authors: J Levi Chazen; Harini Sarva; Philip E Stieg; Robert J Min; Douglas J Ballon; Kane O Pryor; Paul M Riegelhaupt; Michael G Kaplitt Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2017-10-20 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: José V Manjón; Pierrick Coupé; Luis Concha; Antonio Buades; D Louis Collins; Montserrat Robles Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-09-03 Impact factor: 3.240