Zamorano-Dujovny multipurpose neurosurgical image-guided localizing unit: experience in 866 consecutive cases of 'open stereotaxis'

Brain retraction injury: systematic literature review

Cerebral retraction is frequently required in cranial surgery to access deep areas. Brain retractors have been systematically used in the past, but they have been associated with brain injury. Nonetheless, they are still used and, even recently, new systems have been advocated. The aim of this study is to provide a systematic and critical review of brain retraction injury. A systematic literature review was performed in February 2023 according to PRISMA statement. Search terms included brain retraction and injury, with their variations and pertinent associations. Studies reporting qualitative and quantitative data on brain retraction injury were included. Out of 1689 initially retrieved articles, 90 and 26 were included in the systematic review for qualitative and quantitative data, respectively. The definition of brain retraction injury varies and its reported incidence in clinical studies is 5-10%, up to 47% if cerebral edema is considered. Some studies have hypothesized threshold values of pressures to be respected in order to prevent complications, with most data deriving from animal studies. At present, there are no instruments for brain retraction that can guarantee full safety. Some form of cerebral retraction might always be necessary for specific scenarios. Further studies are needed to collect quantitative and, ideally, clinical and comparative data on pressure thresholds to develop retraction systems that can reduce injury to a minimum.

A whole-body registration-free navigation system for image-guided surgery and interventional radiology

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To develop and test an image-guided navigation system in which the base of reference is taken from the imaging modality, here, a helical CT scanner.

METHODS

An optical digitizer together with a calibration device is used to measure the transformation matrix between the digitizer reference system and a CT reference system. During intervention, it tracks radiological and surgical tools with tool references. A specific software visually integrates the current tool position with the corresponding image information. In vitro accuracy tests were performed.

RESULTS

With helical CT, freehand positioning accuracy was 1.9 +/- 1.1 mm (mean +/- SD) in vitro (n = 718).

CONCLUSIONS

The navigation system developed by the authors appears to be feasible for radiological interventions as well as for minimally invasive surgery. It is not limited to a certain procedure, can be used in every region of the body, and is functional after imaging. Intraprocedural scans can be integrated immediately.

Effect of optical digitizer selection on the application accuracy of a surgical localization system-a quantitative comparison between the OPTOTRAK and flashpoint tracking systems

Application accuracy is a crucial factor for stereotactic surgical localization systems, in which space digitization camera systems are one of the most critical components. In this study we compared the effect of the OPTOTRAK 3020 space digitization system and the FlashPoint Model 3000 and 5000 3D digitizer systems on the application accuracy for interactive localization of intracranial lesions. A phantom was mounted with several implantable frameless markers which were randomly distributed on its surface. The target point was digitized and the coordinates were recorded and compared with reference points. The differences from the reference points represented the deviation from the "true point." The root mean square (RMS) was calculated to show the differences, and a paired t-test was used to analyze the results. The results with the phantom showed that, for 1-mm sections of CT scans, the RMS was 0.76 +/- 0. 54 mm for the OPTOTRAK system, 1.23 +/- 0.53 mm for the FlashPoint Model 3000 3D digitizer system, and 1.00 +/- 0.42 mm for the FlashPoint Model 5000 system. These preliminary results showed that there is no significant difference between the three tracking systems, and, from the quality point of view, they can all be used for image-guided surgery procedures.