A Comparative Study of Fiducial-Based and Fiducial-Less Registration Utilizing the O-Arm

Comparison of Deep Brain Stimulation of the Hippocampus to Thalamic Targets and Responsive Neurostimulation for Adult Intractable Epilepsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Stereotactic neuromodulation, such as deep brain stimulation (DBS) and responsive neurostimulation (RNS), have emerged as some of the more promising means for managing drug-resistant epilepsy. This study serves as a comprehensive analysis of DBS of the anterior nucleus of the thalamus (ANT), centromedian nucleus of the thalamus, and hippocampus and RNS for seizure reduction in adult intractable epilepsy.

METHODS

Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a systematic review was conducted of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases from January 2000 to January 2024 to objectively assess the effectiveness of the various neuromodulation modalities on seizure reduction. Different software such as EndNote and Rayyan was used to organize the 1996 total reviewed studies and to run a blinded multiphase review process.

RESULTS

A total of 25 studies were included for review with 21 studies and 166 patients suitable for the meta-analysis. DBS ANT, DBS hippocampus, and RNS were all found to have significant individual seizure reductions of 54.0%, 70.0%, and 63.5%, respectively. DBS centromedian nucleus of the thalamus was excluded since only 1 study met inclusion criteria and was, therefore, not suitable for meta-analysis. Furthermore, the 3 analyzed procedures were found to be not significant when compared to one another. Focal versus general epilepsy in DBS ANT also had no significant difference. DBS hippocampus had a significantly higher reduction rate in patients with mesial temporal sclerosis compared to patients with normal imaging findings.

CONCLUSIONS

These results provide a vast amount of supporting data for these neurostimulation procedures while also indicating no significant difference between operations. Therefore, in this target population, operative decisions can be made based on surgeon preference and patient circumstance without affecting seizure reduction outcomes.

How Accurate Is Frameless Fiducial-Free Deep Brain Stimulation?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Frameless deep brain stimulation (DBS) offers advantages in terms of patient comfort and reduced operative time. However, the need for bony fiducial markers for localization remains a drawback due to the time-consuming and uncomfortable procedure. An alternative localization method involves the direct tracking of an intraoperative 3-dimensional scanner. This study aims to assess the accuracy of the NexFrame frameless DBS system in conjunction with the O-Arm (Medtronic Inc.), both with and without fiducial markers.

METHODS

The locations of 100 DBS leads were determined, with 50 cases using fiducial-free localization and 50 involving fiducial markers. The coordinates were compared with the expected intraoperative targets. Absolute errors in the X, Y, and Z coordinates (ΔX, ΔY, and ΔZ) were calculated, along with the vector error (Euclidean) (vector error ).

RESULTS

The vector error averaged 1.61 ± 0.49 mm (right) and 1.52 ± 0.60 mm (left) for the group without fiducial bone markers and 1.66 ± 0.69 (right) and 1.44 ± 0.65 mm (left) for the other cohort (P = .76 right; P = .67 left). Absolute errors in the X, Y, and Z coordinates for the fiducial-free group were 0.88 ± 0.55, 0.79 ± 0.45, and 0.79 ± 0.57 mm (right) and 0.72 ± 0.37, 0.78 ± 0.56, and 0.77 ± 0.71 mm (left). For the group with fiducial markers, these errors were 0.87 ± 0.72, 0.92 ± 0.39, and 0.86 ± 0.50 mm (right) and 0.75 ± 0.33, 0.80 ± 0.51, and 0.73 ± 0.64 mm (left) with no statistically significant difference.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis of the accuracy of NexFrame DBS, both with and without fiducial markers, using an intraoperative navigable cone-beam computed tomography, demonstrates that both techniques provide sufficient and equivalent 3-dimensional accuracy.

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.

Intraoperative microelectrode recording during asleep deep brain stimulation of subthalamic nucleus for Parkinson Disease. A case series with systematic review of the literature

The use of microelectrode recording (MER) during deep brain stimulation (DBS) for Parkinson Disease is controversial. Furthermore, in asleep DBS anesthesia can impair the ability to record single-cell electric activity.The purpose of this study was to describe our surgical and anesthesiologic protocol for MER assessment during asleep subthalamic nucleus (STN) DBS and to put our findings in the context of a systematic review of the literature. Sixty-three STN electrodes were implanted in 32 patients under general anesthesia. A frameless technique using O-Arm scanning was adopted in all cases. Total intravenous anesthesia, monitored with bispectral index, was administered using a target controlled infusion of both propofol and remifentanil. A systematic review of the literature with metanalysis on MER in asleep vs awake STN DBS for Parkinson Disease was performed. In our series, MER could be reliably recorded in all cases, impacting profoundly on electrode positioning: the final position was located within 2 mm from the planned target only in 42.9% cases. Depth modification > 2 mm was necessary in 21 cases (33.3%), while in 15 cases (23.8%) a different track was used. At 1-year follow-up we observed a significant reduction in LEDD, UPDRS Part III score off-medications, and UPDRS Part III score on medications, as compared to baseline. The systematic review of the literature yielded 23 papers; adding the cases here reported, overall 1258 asleep DBS cases using MER are described. This technique was safe and effective: metanalysis showed similar, if not better, outcome of asleep vs awake patients operated using MER. MER are a useful and reliable tool during asleep STN DBS, leading to a fine tuning of electrode position in the majority of cases. Collaboration between neurosurgeon, neurophysiologist and neuroanesthesiologist is crucial, since slight modifications of sedation level can impact profoundly on MER reliability.

How precise are oral splints for frameless stereotaxy in guided ear, nose, throat, and maxillofacial surgery: a cadaver study

Background

Computer-assisted surgery optimises accuracy and serves to improve precise surgical procedures. We validated oral splints with fiducial markers by testing them against rigid bone markers.

Methods

We screwed twenty bone anchors as fiducial markers into different regions of a dried skull and measured the distances. After computed tomography (CT) scanning, the accuracy was evaluated by determining the markers’ position using frameless stereotaxy on a dry cadaver and indicated on the CT scan. We compared the accuracy of chairside fabricated oral splints to standard registration with bone markers immediately after fabrication and after a ten-time use. Accuracy was calculated as deviation (mean ± standard deviation). For statistical analysis, t test, Kruskal-Wallis, Tukey's, and various linear regression models, such as the Pearson's product–moment correlation coefficient, were used.

Results

Oral splints showed an accuracy of 0.90 mm ± 0.27 for viscerocranium, 1.10 mm ± 0.39 for skull base, and 1.45 mm ± 0.59 for neurocranium. We found an accuracy of less than 2 mm for both splints for a distance of up to 152 mm. The accuracy persisted even after ten times removing and reattaching the splints.

Conclusions

Oral splints offer a non-invasive indicator to improve the accuracy of image-guided surgery. The precision is dependent on the distance to the target. Up to 150-mm distance, a precision of fewer than 2 mm is possible. Dental splints provide sufficient accuracy than bone markers and may opt for higher precision combined with other non-invasive registration methods.

The Poised Cannula Technique Reduces the Stereotactic Error of the Fiducial-Less Frameless DBS Procedure

BACKGROUND

In this study, we describe a technique of optimizing the accuracy of frameless deep brain stimulation (DBS) lead placement through the use of a cannula poised at the entry to predict the location of the fully inserted device. This allows real-time correction of error prior to violation of the deep gray matter.

METHODS

We prospectively gathered data on radial error during the operative placements of 40 leads in 28 patients using frameless fiducial-less DBS surgery. Once the Nexframe had been aligned to target, a cannula was inserted through the center channel of the BenGun until it traversed the pial surface and a low-dose O-arm spin was obtained. Using 2 points along the length of the imaged cannula, a trajectory line was projected to target depth. If lead location could be improved, the cannula was inserted through an alternate track in the BenGun down to target depth. After intraoperative microelectrode recording and clinical assessment, another O-arm spin was obtained to compare the location of the inserted lead with the location predicted by the poised cannula.

RESULTS

The poised cannula projection and the actual implant had a mean radial discrepancy of 0.75 ± 0.64 mm. The poised cannula projection identified potentially clinically significant errors (avg 2.07 ± 0.73 mm) in 33% of cases, which were reduced to a radial error of 1.33 ± 0.66 mm (p = 0.02) after correction using an alternative BenGun track. The final target to implant error for all 40 leads was 1.20 ± 0.52 mm with only 2.5% of errors being >2.5 mm.

CONCLUSION

The poised cannula technique results in a reduction of large errors (>2.5 mm), resulting in a decline in these errors to 2.5% of implants as compared to 17% in our previous publication using the fiducial-less method and 4% using fiducial-based methods of DBS lead placement.

O-Arm Stereotactic Imaging in Deep Brain Stimulation Surgery Workflow: A Utility and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) surgery is an established treatment for movement disorders. Advances in neuroimaging techniques have resulted in improved targeting accuracy that may improve clinical outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of using the Medtronic O-arm device for the acquisition of intraoperative stereotactic imaging, targeting, and localization of DBS electrodes compared with standard stereotactic MRI or computed tomography (CT).

METHODS

Patients were recruited prospectively into the study. Routine frame-based stereotactic DBS surgery was performed. Intraoperative imaging was used to facilitate and verify the accurate placement of the intracranial electrodes. The acquisition of coordinates and verification of the position of the electrodes using the O-arm were evaluated and compared with conventional stereotactic MRI or CT. Additionally, a systematic review of the literature on the use of intraoperative imaging in DBS surgery was performed.

RESULTS

Eighty patients were included. The indications for DBS surgery were dystonia, Parkinson's disease, essential tremor, and epilepsy. The globus pallidus internus was the most commonly targeted region (43.7%), followed by the subthalamic nucleus (35%). Stereotactic O-arm imaging reduced the overall surgical time by 68 min, reduced the length of time of acquisition of stereotactic images by 77%, reduced patient exposure to ionizing radiation by 24.2%, significantly reduced operating room (OR) costs per procedure by 31%, and increased the OR and neuroradiology suite availability.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the O-arm in DBS surgery workflow significantly reduced the duration of image acquisition, the exposure to ionizing radiation, and costs when compared with standard stereotactic MRI or CT, without reducing accuracy.

O-Arm Navigated Frameless and Fiducial-Less Deep Brain Stimulation

Object: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a very useful procedure for the treatment of idiopathic Parkinson’s disease (PD), essential tremor, and dystonia. The authors evaluated the accuracy of the new method used in their center for the placing of DBS electrodes. Electrodes are placed using the intraoperative O-arm™ (Medtronic)-controlled frameless and fiducial-less system, Nexframe™ (Medtronic). Accuracy was evaluated prospectively in eleven consecutive PD patients (22 electrodes). Methods: Eleven adult patients with PD were implanted using the Nexframe system without fiducials and with the intraoperative O-arm (Medtronic) system and StealthStation™ S8 navigation (Medtronic). The implantation of DBS leads was performed using multiple-cell microelectrode recording, and intraoperative test stimulation to determine thresholds for stimulation-induced adverse effects. The accuracy was checked in three different steps: (1) using the intraoperative O-arm image and its fusion with preoperative planning, (2) using multiple-cell microelectrode recording and counting the number of microelectrodes with the signal of the subthalamic nucleus (STN) and finally, (3) total error was calculated according to a postoperative CT control image fused to preoperative planning. Results: The total error of the procedure was 1.79 mm; the radial error and the vector error were 171 mm and 163 mm. Conclusions: Implantation of DBS electrodes using an O-arm navigated frameless and fiducial-less system is a very useful and technically feasible procedure with excellent patient toleration with experienced Nexframe users. The accuracy of the method was confirmed at all three steps, and it is comparable to other published results.

Intraoperative Stereotactic Frame Registration Using a Three-Dimensional Imaging System with and without Preoperative Computed Tomography for Image Fusion

BACKGROUND

The O-arm O2 imaging system (OAO2) is an intraoperative cone beam 3D tomogram imaging tool with a wide enough field of view to perform intraoperative fiducial registration with standard stereotactic frames. However, the OAO2 3D images (cone beam CT) provide limited tissue contrast, which may reduce the accuracy of fusion to a preoperative targeting MRI for planning awake deep brain stimulation (DBS) surgeries. Therefore, most users obtain a preoperative CT scan to use as the reference exam for computational fusion with the preoperative targeting MRI and the intraoperative OAO2 cone beam CT.

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we retrospectively analyzed the discrepancy between stereotactic coordinates of deep brain targets on MRI derived from intraoperative OAO2 fiducial registration with and without the use of preoperative CT as the reference for image fusion.

METHODS

Preoperative stereotactic CT/MRI and intraoperative OAO2 cone beam CT were retrospectively evaluated for 27 consecutive DBS patients, using two commercial surgical planning software packages (BrainLab Elements and Medtronic Stealth 8). The anterior commissure, posterior commissure, and left subthalamic nucleus were identified on preoperative MRI. Each patient had intraoperative fiducial registration using the OAO2 with a Leksell headframe. For each subject, the reference scan for image fusion was set as either the preoperative CT or the preoperative MRI (volumetric T1 with contrast). Computed stereotactic coordinates for each target were then compared.

RESULTS

For 8 of 27 subjects, a discrepancy greater than 1.0 mm for at least one designated target was observed utilizing the Medtronic Stealth S8 planning station when a preoperative CT scan was not used. An additional 5 (5/27) had a discrepancy greater than 2 mm. The most common discrepancy was in the z axis. No coordinate discrepancies greater than 1 mm were observed utilizing BrainLab Elements.

CONCLUSIONS

Caution is advised in fusing intraoperative OAO2 images directly to preoperative MRI without a preoperative CT as the reference exam for image fusion, as the specific fusion algorithm employed may unpredictably affect targeting accuracy.