Comparison of Intraoperative 3-Dimensional Fluoroscopy With Standard Computed Tomography for Stereotactic Frame Registration

Intraoperative 3D fluoroscopy accurately predicts final electrode position in deep brain stimulation surgery

PURPOSE

In the absence of an intraoperative CT or MRI setup, post-implantation confirmation of electrode position in deep brain stimulation (DBS) requires patient transportation to the radiology unit, prolonging surgery time. This project aims to validate intraoperative 3D fluoroscopy (3DF), a widely available tool in Neurosurgical units, as a method to determine final electrode position.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study including 64 patients (124 electrodes) who underwent DBS at our institution. Intraoperative 3DF after electrode implantation and postoperative volumetric CT were acquired. The Euclidean coordinates of the electrode tip displayed in both imaging modalities were determined and inter-method deviations were assessed. Pneumocephalus was quantified and its potential impact in determining the electrode position analyzed. Finally, 3DF and CT-imposed exposure to radiation was compared.

RESULTS

The difference between the electrode tip estimated by 3DF and CT was 0.85 ± 0.03 mm, and not significantly different (p = 0.11 for the distance to MCP assessed by both methods), but was, instead, highly correlated (p = 0.91; p < 0.0001). Even though pneumocephalus was larger in 3DF (6.89 ± 1.76 vs 5.18 ± 1.37 mm3 in the CT group, p < 0.001), it was not correlated with the difference in electrode position measured by both techniques (p = 0.17; p = 0.06). Radiation exposure from 3DF is significantly lower than CT (0.36 ± 0.03 vs 2.08 ± 0.05 mSv; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative 3DF is comparable to CT in determining the final DBS electrode position. Being a method with fewer radiation exposure, less expensive, faster and that avoids patient transportation outside the operation room, it is a valid tool to replace postoperative CT.

Evolution of Deep Brain Stimulation Techniques for Complication Mitigation

Complication mitigation in deep brain stimulation has been a topic matter of much discussion in the literature. In this article, we examine how neurosurgeons as individuals and as a field generated and adapted techniques to prevent infection, lead fracture/lead migration, and suboptimal outcomes in both the acute period and longitudinally. The authors performed a MEDLINE search inclusive of articles from 1987 to June 2023 including human studies written in English. Using the Rayyan platform, two reviewers (J.P. and R.M.) performed a title screen. Of the 776 articles, 252 were selected by title screen and 172 from abstract review for full-text evaluation. Ultimately, 124 publications were evaluated. We describe the initial complications and inefficiencies at the advent of deep brain stimulation and detail changes instituted by surgeons that reduced them. Furthermore, we discuss the trend in both undesired short-term and long-term outcomes with emphasis on how surgeons recognized and modified their practice to provide safer and better procedures. This scoping review adds to the literature as a guide to both new neurosurgeons and seasoned neurosurgeons alike to understand better what innovations have been trialed over time as we embark on novel targets and neuromodulatory technologies.

Evaluation of 3D C-Arm Fluoroscopy versus Diagnostic CT for Deep Brain Stimulation Stereotactic Registration and Post-Operative Lead Localization

INTRODUCTION

DBS efficacy depends on accuracy. CT-MRI fusion is established for both stereotactic registration and electrode placement verification. The desire to streamline DBS workflows, reduce operative time, and minimize patient transfers has increased interest in portable imaging modalities such as the Medtronic O-arm® and mobile CT. However, these remain expensive and bulky. 3D C-arm fluoroscopy (3DXT) units are a smaller and less costly alternative, albeit incompatible with traditional frame-based localization and without useful soft tissue resolution. We aimed to compare fusion of 3DXT and CT with pre-operative MRI to evaluate if 3DXT-MRI fusion alone is sufficient for accurate registration and reliable targeting verification. We further assess DBS targeting accuracy using a 3DXT workflow and compare radiation dosimetry between modalities.

METHODS

Patients underwent robot-assisted DBS implantation using a workflow incorporating 3DXT which we describe. Two intra-operative 3DXT spins were performed for registration and accuracy verification followed by conventional CT post-operatively. Post-operative 3DXT and CT images were independently fused to the same pre-operative MRI sequence and co-ordinates generated for comparison. Registration accuracy was compared to 15 consecutive controls who underwent CT-based registration. Radial targeting accuracy was calculated and radiation dosimetry recorded.

RESULTS

Data were obtained from 29 leads in 15 consecutive patients. 3DXT registration accuracy was significantly superior to CT with mean error 0.22 ± 0.03 mm (p < 0.0001). Mean Euclidean electrode tip position variation for CT to MRI versus 3DXT to MRI fusion was 0.62 ± 0.40 mm (range 0.0 mm-1.7 mm). In comparison, direct CT to 3DXT fusion showed electrode tip Euclidean variance of 0.23 ± 0.09 mm. Mean radial targeting accuracy assessed on 3DXT was 0.97 ± 0.54 mm versus 1.15 ± 0.55 mm on CT with differences insignificant (p = 0.30). Mean patient radiation doses were around 80% lower with 3DXT versus CT (p < 0.0001).

DISCUSSION

Mobile 3D C-arm fluoroscopy can be safely incorporated into DBS workflows for both registration and lead verification. For registration, the limited field of view requires the use of frameless transient fiducials and is highly accurate. For lead position verification based on MRI co-registration, we estimate there is around a 0.4 mm discrepancy between lead position seen on 3DXT versus CT when corrected for brain shift. This is similar to that described in O-arm® or mobile CT series. For units where logistical or financial considerations preclude the acquisition of a cone beam CT or mobile CT scanner, our data support portable 3D C-arm fluoroscopy as an acceptable alternative with significantly lower radiation exposure.

Image-to-Patient Registration in Computer-Assisted Surgery of Head and Neck: State-of-the-Art, Perspectives, and Challenges

Today, image-guided systems play a significant role in improving the outcome of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. They provide crucial anatomical information during the procedure to decrease the size and the extent of the approach, to reduce intraoperative complications, and to increase accuracy, repeatability, and safety. Image-to-patient registration is the first step in image-guided procedures. It establishes a correspondence between the patient's preoperative imaging and the intraoperative data. When it comes to the head-and-neck region, the presence of many sensitive structures such as the central nervous system or the neurosensory organs requires a millimetric precision. This review allows evaluating the characteristics and the performances of different registration methods in the head-and-neck region used in the operation room from the perspectives of accuracy, invasiveness, and processing times. Our work led to the conclusion that invasive marker-based methods are still considered as the gold standard of image-to-patient registration. The surface-based methods are recommended for faster procedures and applied on the surface tissues especially around the eyes. In the near future, computer vision technology is expected to enhance these systems by reducing human errors and cognitive load in the operating room.

The accuracy of 3D fluoroscopy (XT) vs computed tomography (CT) registration in deep brain stimulation (DBS) surgery

BACKGROUND

Stereotactic registration is the most critical step ensuring accuracy in deep brain stimulation (DBS) surgery. 3D fluoroscopy (XT) is emerging as an alternative to CT. XT has been shown to be safe and effective for intraoperative confirmation of lead position following implantation. However, there is a lack of studies evaluating the suitability of XT to be used for the more crucial step of registration and its capability of being merged to a preoperative MRI. This is the first study comparing accuracy, efficiency, and radiation exposure of XT- vs CT-based stereotactic registration and XT/MRI merging in deep brain stimulation.

METHODS

Mean absolute differences and Euclidean distance between planned (adjusted for intraoperative testing) and actual lead trajectories were calculated for accuracy of implantation. The radiation dose from each scan was recorded as the dose length product (DLP). Efficiency was measured as the time between the patient entering the operating room and the initial skin incision. A one-way ANOVA compared these parameters between patients that had either CT- or XT-based registration.

RESULTS

Forty-one patients underwent DBS surgery-25 in the CT group and 16 in the XT group. The mean absolute difference between CT and XT was not statistically significant in the x (p = 0.331), y (p = 0.951), or z (p = 0.807) directions. The Euclidean distance between patient groups did not differ significantly (p = 0.874). The average radiation exposure with XT (220.0 ± 0.1 mGy*cm) was significantly lower than CT (1269.3 ± 112.9 mGy*cm) (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in registration time between CT (107.8 ± 23.1 min) and XT (106.0 ± 18.2 min) (p = 0.518).

CONCLUSION

XT-based frame registration was shown to result in similar implantation accuracy and significantly less radiation exposure compared with CT. Our results surprisingly showed no significant difference in registration time, but this may be due to a learning curve effect.