Technical Comparison of Treatment Efficiency of Magnetic Resonance-Guided Focused Ultrasound Thalamotomy and Pallidotomy in Skull Density Ratio-Matched Patient Cohorts.
focused ultrasound (MRgFUS)
movement disorders
skull density ratio
stereotactic ablation
thalamotomy pallidotomy
Journal
Frontiers in neurology
ISSN: 1664-2295
Titre abrégé: Front Neurol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101546899
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
04
11
2021
accepted:
17
12
2021
entrez:
7
2
2022
pubmed:
8
2
2022
medline:
8
2
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
MR-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) is increasingly being used to treat patients with essential tremor (ET) and Parkinson's disease (PD) with thalamotomy and pallidotomy, respectively. Pallidotomy is performed off-center within the cranium compared to thalamotomy and may present challenges to therapeutic lesioning due to this location. However, the impact of target location on treatment efficiency and ability to create therapeutic lesions has not been studied. This study aimed to compare the physical efficiency of MRgFUS thalamotomy and pallidotomy. Treatment characteristics were compared between patients treated with thalamotomy ( Lower SDR values were associated with greater energy requirement for thalamotomy (R The centrally located VIM offers a more efficient location for therapeutic lesioning compared to GPi pallidotomy in SDR matched cohort of patients. The impact on therapeutic lesioning with lower SDR may be greater for pallidotomy patients. As newer off-center targets are investigated, these findings can inform patient selection and treatment requirements for lesion production.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35126300
doi: 10.3389/fneur.2021.808810
pmc: PMC8813961
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
808810Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Ahmed, Guo, Kelm, Clanton, Melhem, Gullapalli, Ksendzovsky, Eisenberg, Miller and Gandhi.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Authors NK and RC were employed by company Insightec. HE and DG were on the advisory board of Insightec. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
J Neurosurg. 2020 Nov 27;:1-7
pubmed: 33481557
J Neurosurg. 2020 Sep 25;:1-9
pubmed: 32977311
J Neurosurg. 2019 Apr 26;132(5):1392-1397
pubmed: 31026836
Mov Disord. 2020 Dec;35(12):2327-2333
pubmed: 32815611
Neurosurgery. 2016 Nov;79(5):643-654
pubmed: 27552589
J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2019 Nov;62(6):712-722
pubmed: 31142101
Mol Psychiatry. 2020 Sep;25(9):1946-1957
pubmed: 32404942
Phys Med Biol. 2002 Apr 21;47(8):1219-36
pubmed: 12030552
J Neurosurg. 1954 Sep;11(5):471-8
pubmed: 13201985
BMC Neurol. 2020 Apr 29;20(1):160
pubmed: 32349706
Front Neurosci. 2021 Jan 12;14:592763
pubmed: 33510610
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Jul;205(1):150-9
pubmed: 26102394
Phys Med Biol. 2011 Aug 7;56(15):4661-83
pubmed: 21734333
Am J Phys Med. 1958 Jun;37(3):152-6
pubmed: 13545382
J Neurosurg. 2020 Jan 3;:1-13
pubmed: 31899872
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014 May;35(5):891-6
pubmed: 24371027
J Neurosurg. 2016 Dec;125(6):1557-1564
pubmed: 26871207
J Neurosurg. 2016 Feb;124(2):411-6
pubmed: 26361280
JAMA. 2020 May 26;323(20):2080-2081
pubmed: 32453350
Neurosurgery. 2020 Jul 1;87(1):1-10
pubmed: 31745558
J Acoust Soc Am. 2003 Jan;113(1):84-93
pubmed: 12558249
Phys Med Biol. 2017 Aug 03;62(17):L9-L19
pubmed: 28665289
J Neurosurg. 2020 Apr 24;134(3):1083-1090
pubmed: 32330882
J Neurosurg. 2013 Feb;118(2):319-28
pubmed: 23157185
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2006 Jul;32(7):1085-96
pubmed: 16829322
J Neurosurg. 2019 May 03;132(6):1785-1791
pubmed: 31051458
Med Phys. 2015 Apr;42(4):1518-27
pubmed: 25832042
Neurosurgery. 2009 Feb;64(2):201-10; discussion 210-1
pubmed: 19190451
JAMA Neurol. 2018 Feb 1;75(2):246-254
pubmed: 29228074
J Appl Physiol. 1948 Aug;1(2):93-122
pubmed: 18887578
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2017 Mar;38(3):426-431
pubmed: 27538905