Implementation of Intraoperative Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (O-arm) for Stereotactic Imaging During Deep Brain Stimulation Procedures.
Accuracy
Deep brain stimulation
O-arm
Stereotactic planning
Journal
Operative neurosurgery (Hagerstown, Md.)
ISSN: 2332-4260
Titre abrégé: Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101635417
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 09 2020
01 09 2020
Historique:
received:
17
07
2019
accepted:
05
03
2020
pubmed:
12
5
2020
medline:
28
5
2021
entrez:
12
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Intraoperative cone-beam computed tomography (iCBCT) allows for rapid 3-dimensional imaging. However, it is currently unknown whether this imaging technique offers sufficient accuracy for stereotactic registration during deep brain stimulation (DBS) procedures. To determine the accuracy of iCBCT, with the O-arm O2 (Medtronic), for stereotactic registration by comparing this modality to stereotactic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). All DBS patients underwent a preoperative non-stereotactic 3 Tesla MRI, stereotactic 1.5 Tesla MRI, stereotactic O-arm iCBCT, postimplantation O-arm iCBCT, and postoperative conventional multidetector computed tomography (CT) scan. We compared stereotactic (X, Y, and Z) coordinates of the anterior commissure (AC), the posterior commissure (PC), and midline reference (MR) between stereotactic MRI and iCBCT. For localisation comparison of electrode contacts, stereotactic coordinates of electrode tips were compared between the postoperative multidetector CT and iCBCT. A total of 20 patients were evaluated. The average absolute difference in stereotactic coordinates of AC, PC, and MR was 0.4 ± 0.4 mm for X, 0.4 ± 0.4 mm for Y, and 0.7 ± 0.5 mm for Z. The average absolute difference in X-, Y-, and Z-coordinates for electrode localisation (N = 34) was 0.3 ± 0.3 mm, 0.6 ± 0.3 mm, and 0.6 ± 0.6 mm. These differences were small enough not to be considered clinically relevant. Stereotactic MRI and O-arm iCBCT yield comparable coordinates in pre- and postoperative imaging. Differences found are below the threshold of clinical relevance. Intraoperative O-arm CBCT offers rapid stereotactic registration and evaluation of electrode placement. This increases patient comfort and neurosurgical workflow efficiency.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Intraoperative cone-beam computed tomography (iCBCT) allows for rapid 3-dimensional imaging. However, it is currently unknown whether this imaging technique offers sufficient accuracy for stereotactic registration during deep brain stimulation (DBS) procedures.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the accuracy of iCBCT, with the O-arm O2 (Medtronic), for stereotactic registration by comparing this modality to stereotactic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
METHODS
All DBS patients underwent a preoperative non-stereotactic 3 Tesla MRI, stereotactic 1.5 Tesla MRI, stereotactic O-arm iCBCT, postimplantation O-arm iCBCT, and postoperative conventional multidetector computed tomography (CT) scan. We compared stereotactic (X, Y, and Z) coordinates of the anterior commissure (AC), the posterior commissure (PC), and midline reference (MR) between stereotactic MRI and iCBCT. For localisation comparison of electrode contacts, stereotactic coordinates of electrode tips were compared between the postoperative multidetector CT and iCBCT.
RESULTS
A total of 20 patients were evaluated. The average absolute difference in stereotactic coordinates of AC, PC, and MR was 0.4 ± 0.4 mm for X, 0.4 ± 0.4 mm for Y, and 0.7 ± 0.5 mm for Z. The average absolute difference in X-, Y-, and Z-coordinates for electrode localisation (N = 34) was 0.3 ± 0.3 mm, 0.6 ± 0.3 mm, and 0.6 ± 0.6 mm. These differences were small enough not to be considered clinically relevant.
CONCLUSION
Stereotactic MRI and O-arm iCBCT yield comparable coordinates in pre- and postoperative imaging. Differences found are below the threshold of clinical relevance. Intraoperative O-arm CBCT offers rapid stereotactic registration and evaluation of electrode placement. This increases patient comfort and neurosurgical workflow efficiency.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32392290
pii: 5835868
doi: 10.1093/ons/opaa110
pmc: PMC7530565
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
E224-E229Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 by the Congress of Neurological Surgeons.
Références
Neurochirurgie. 2014 Dec;60(6):276-82
pubmed: 25245923
J Clin Neurosci. 2016 May;27:80-6
pubmed: 26778050
Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. 2017;95(3):183-188
pubmed: 28601874
Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown). 2017 Feb 1;13(1):96-107
pubmed: 28931260
Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. 2012;90(6):401-9
pubmed: 23075522
J Xray Sci Technol. 2009;17(4):305-17
pubmed: 19923687
Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. 2010;88(2):109-14
pubmed: 20134210
Bratisl Lek Listy. 2017;118(11):647-653
pubmed: 29216719
Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. 2015;93(5):316-25
pubmed: 26227179
Neurosurgery. 2011 Mar;68(1 Suppl Operative):114-24; discussion 124
pubmed: 21206322
Neuromodulation. 2018 Aug;21(6):588-592
pubmed: 29266520
Lancet Neurol. 2013 Jan;12(1):37-44
pubmed: 23168021
Neurosurgery. 2013 Mar;72(1 Suppl Operative):47-57
pubmed: 22986604
Trials. 2017 Sep 7;18(1):417
pubmed: 28882161
Lancet Neurol. 2014 Sep;13(9):875-84
pubmed: 25127231
Surg Neurol Int. 2016 Aug 02;7(Suppl 19):S551-6
pubmed: 27583182
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2010 Oct;67(10):1061-8
pubmed: 20921122
Mov Disord. 2008 Jun 15;23(8):1146-53
pubmed: 18442104