A detailed analysis of anatomical plausibility of crossed and uncrossed streamline rendition of the dentato-rubro-thalamic tract (DRT(T)) in a commercial stereotactic planning system.
Brain
DBS
DRT
Deep brain stimulation
Diffusion tensor imaging
Stereotaxy
Tractography
Journal
Acta neurochirurgica
ISSN: 0942-0940
Titre abrégé: Acta Neurochir (Wien)
Pays: Austria
ID NLM: 0151000
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2021
10 2021
Historique:
received:
22
02
2021
accepted:
20
05
2021
pubmed:
29
6
2021
medline:
25
11
2021
entrez:
28
6
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
An increasing number of neurosurgeons use display of the dentato-rubro-thalamic tract (DRT) based on diffusion weighted imaging (dMRI) as basis for their routine planning of stimulation or lesioning approaches in stereotactic tremor surgery. An evaluation of the anatomical validity of the display of the DRT with respect to modern stereotactic planning systems and across different tracking environments has not been performed. Distinct dMRI and anatomical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data of high and low quality from 9 subjects were used. Six subjects had repeated MRI scans and therefore entered the analysis twice. Standardized DICOM structure templates for volume of interest definition were applied in native space for all investigations. For tracking BrainLab Elements (BrainLab, Munich, Germany), two tensor deterministic tracking (FT2), MRtrix IFOD2 ( https://www.mrtrix.org ), and a global tracking (GT) approach were used to compare the display of the uncrossed (DRTu) and crossed (DRTx) fiber structure after transformation into MNI space. The resulting streamlines were investigated for congruence, reproducibility, anatomical validity, and penetration of anatomical way point structures. In general, the DRTu can be depicted with good quality (as judged by waypoints). FT2 (surgical) and GT (neuroscientific) show high congruence. While GT shows partly reproducible results for DRTx, the crossed pathway cannot be reliably reconstructed with the other (iFOD2 and FT2) algorithms. Since a direct anatomical comparison is difficult in the individual subjects, we chose a comparison with two research tracking environments as the best possible "ground truth." FT2 is useful especially because of its manual editing possibilities of cutting erroneous fibers on the single subject level. An uncertainty of 2 mm as mean displacement of DRTu is expectable and should be respected when using this approach for surgical planning. Tractographic renditions of the DRTx on the single subject level seem to be still illusive.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
An increasing number of neurosurgeons use display of the dentato-rubro-thalamic tract (DRT) based on diffusion weighted imaging (dMRI) as basis for their routine planning of stimulation or lesioning approaches in stereotactic tremor surgery. An evaluation of the anatomical validity of the display of the DRT with respect to modern stereotactic planning systems and across different tracking environments has not been performed.
METHODS
Distinct dMRI and anatomical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data of high and low quality from 9 subjects were used. Six subjects had repeated MRI scans and therefore entered the analysis twice. Standardized DICOM structure templates for volume of interest definition were applied in native space for all investigations. For tracking BrainLab Elements (BrainLab, Munich, Germany), two tensor deterministic tracking (FT2), MRtrix IFOD2 ( https://www.mrtrix.org ), and a global tracking (GT) approach were used to compare the display of the uncrossed (DRTu) and crossed (DRTx) fiber structure after transformation into MNI space. The resulting streamlines were investigated for congruence, reproducibility, anatomical validity, and penetration of anatomical way point structures.
RESULTS
In general, the DRTu can be depicted with good quality (as judged by waypoints). FT2 (surgical) and GT (neuroscientific) show high congruence. While GT shows partly reproducible results for DRTx, the crossed pathway cannot be reliably reconstructed with the other (iFOD2 and FT2) algorithms.
CONCLUSION
Since a direct anatomical comparison is difficult in the individual subjects, we chose a comparison with two research tracking environments as the best possible "ground truth." FT2 is useful especially because of its manual editing possibilities of cutting erroneous fibers on the single subject level. An uncertainty of 2 mm as mean displacement of DRTu is expectable and should be respected when using this approach for surgical planning. Tractographic renditions of the DRTx on the single subject level seem to be still illusive.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34181083
doi: 10.1007/s00701-021-04890-4
pii: 10.1007/s00701-021-04890-4
pmc: PMC8437929
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2809-2824Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Transl Psychiatry. 2018 Jun 4;8(1):111
pubmed: 29867109
Lancet. 1991 Feb 16;337(8738):403-6
pubmed: 1671433
Neuroimage Clin. 2020;26:102235
pubmed: 32172171
J Neurosurg. 1996 Feb;84(2):203-14
pubmed: 8592222
Brain. 2019 Oct 1;142(10):3086-3098
pubmed: 31377766
Neuroimage. 2018 Jul 15;175:215-229
pubmed: 29438843
Mol Psychiatry. 2018 Apr;23(4):843-849
pubmed: 28397839
J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2012 Spring;24(2):223-36
pubmed: 22772671
J Neural Eng. 2020 Feb 18;17(1):011001
pubmed: 31931484
Brain Struct Funct. 2016 Sep;221(7):3487-501
pubmed: 26438333
J Comp Neurol. 2000 Feb 7;417(2):164-80
pubmed: 10660895
Neurosurgery. 2014 Dec;75(6):657-69; discussion 669-70
pubmed: 25161000
Neuroimage Clin. 2019;22:101758
pubmed: 30987841
Front Neurosci. 2013 Mar 12;7:31
pubmed: 23486659
Neuroimage Clin. 2018;20:1266-1273
pubmed: 30318403
Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2019 Oct;185:105466
pubmed: 31466022
PLoS One. 2013 Sep 03;8(9):e73021
pubmed: 24019889
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2020 May;162(5):1053-1066
pubmed: 31997069
Neuroimage. 2016 Nov 15;142:394-406
pubmed: 27523449
Neuroimage. 2018 Apr 15;170:271-282
pubmed: 28536045
J Neurosurg. 2011 Nov;115(5):995-1004
pubmed: 21854118
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2008 May;79(5):504-13
pubmed: 18037630
Eur J Neurosci. 2017 Jun;45(12):1623-1633
pubmed: 28391647
Neurosurgery. 2004 May;54(5):1120-29; discussion 1129-30
pubmed: 15113466
Nat Commun. 2017 Nov 7;8(1):1349
pubmed: 29116093
Int Rev Neurobiol. 2012;107:207-34
pubmed: 23206684
Hum Brain Mapp. 2015 Aug;36(8):3167-78
pubmed: 26043869
Br J Neurosurg. 2007 Aug;21(4):349-54
pubmed: 17676453
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2017 May;159(5):779-787
pubmed: 28283867
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2020 Sep;41(9):1558-1568
pubmed: 32816768
Neuroimage. 2018 Aug 1;176:364-371
pubmed: 29733955
Neurosurgery. 2011 Apr;68(4):1069-75; discussion 1075-6
pubmed: 21242831
Magn Reson Med. 2004 Nov;52(5):1156-66
pubmed: 15508146
Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. 2020;98(4):220-240
pubmed: 32403112
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2019 Aug;161(8):1559-1569
pubmed: 31144167
Neuroimage. 2003 Oct;20(2):870-88
pubmed: 14568458
Brain Struct Funct. 2008 Aug;212(6):443-63
pubmed: 18193279
Radiology. 2014 Jul;272(1):202-9
pubmed: 24620914
J Neurosurg. 2014 Oct;121(4):929-35
pubmed: 25061862
J Neurosurg. 2018 Aug;129(2):315-323
pubmed: 29053074
Brain. 2006 Jul;129(Pt 7):1732-47
pubmed: 16720681
J Neurol. 2015 Jan;262(1):54-8
pubmed: 25287016
Brain. 2018 Dec 1;141(12):3405-3414
pubmed: 30452554
Neuroimage. 2011 May 1;56(1):220-34
pubmed: 21256221
Biol Psychiatry. 2013 Jun 15;73(12):1204-12
pubmed: 23562618
J Neurosurg. 2018 Mar 23;130(1):99-108
pubmed: 29570012
J Neurosurg. 2016 May;124(5):1406-12
pubmed: 26452117
Neuromodulation. 2017 Jul;20(5):429-436
pubmed: 28256785
Neuroimage. 2011 Jan 15;54(2):955-62
pubmed: 20854913
Hum Brain Mapp. 2020 Dec;41(17):4769-4788
pubmed: 32762005
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2011 Aug;153(8):1579-85; discussion 1585
pubmed: 21553318
Neuromodulation. 2018 Feb;21(2):191-196
pubmed: 28653482
Neuromodulation. 2015 Feb;18(2):105-12
pubmed: 25209587
Neuroimage. 2007 May 1;35(4):1459-72
pubmed: 17379540
Magn Reson Med. 2016 Nov;76(5):1574-1581
pubmed: 26745823
Mov Disord. 2016 Aug;31(8):1217-25
pubmed: 27214406
Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. 2020;98(4):256-262
pubmed: 32369819
Ann Neurol. 1999 Feb;45(2):265-9
pubmed: 9989633
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2015 Mar;157(3):469-77
pubmed: 25585836
Neuroimage. 2014 Dec;103:411-426
pubmed: 25109526
Neuroimage Clin. 2018 Jan 28;18:130-142
pubmed: 29387530
Neuroimage. 2019 Jan 15;185:1-11
pubmed: 30317017
Brain Lang. 2014 Apr;131:65-73
pubmed: 23910928
Cerebellum. 2014 Feb;13(1):113-20
pubmed: 24078481
Neurology. 2012 Mar 13;78(11):787-95
pubmed: 22377809
Cent Eur Neurosurg. 2009 Feb;70(1):27-35
pubmed: 19191204
Neuroradiol J. 2019 Dec;32(6):401-407
pubmed: 31407957