Isolation of the brain-related factor of the error between intended and achieved position of deep brain stimulation electrodes implanted into the subthalamic nucleus for the treatment of Parkinson's disease

How accurately are subthalamic nucleus electrodes implanted relative to the ideal stimulation location for Parkinson's disease?

Introduction

The efficacy of subthalamic nucleus (STN) deep brain stimulation (DBS) in Parkinson’s disease (PD) depends on how closely electrodes are implanted relative to an individual’s ideal stimulation location. Yet, previous studies have assessed how closely electrodes are implanted relative to the planned location, after homogenizing data to a reference. Thus here, we measured how accurately electrodes are implanted relative to an ideal, dorsal STN stimulation location, assessed on each individual’s native imaging. This measure captures not only the technical error of stereotactic implantation but also constraints imposed by planning a suitable trajectory.

Methods

This cross-sectional study assessed 226 electrodes in 113 consecutive PD patients implanted with bilateral STN-DBS by experienced clinicians utilizing awake, microelectrode guided, surgery. The error (Euclidean distance) between the actual electrode trajectory versus a nominated ideal, dorsal STN stimulation location was determined in each hemisphere on native imaging and predictive factors sought.

Results

The median electrode location error was 1.62 mm (IQR = 1.23 mm). This error exceeded 3 mm in 28/226 electrodes (12.4%). Location error did not differ between hemispheres implanted first or second, suggesting brain shift was minimised. Location error did not differ between electrodes positioned with (48/226), or without, a preceding microelectrode trajectory shift (suggesting such shifts were beneficial). There was no relationship between location error and case order, arguing against a learning effect.

Discussion/Conclusion

The proximity of STN-DBS electrodes to a nominated ideal, dorsal STN, stimulation location is highly variable, even when implanted by experienced clinicians with brain shift minimized, and without evidence of a learning effect. Using this measure, we found that assessments on awake patients (microelectrode recordings and clinical examination) likely yielded beneficial intraoperative decisions to improve positioning. In many patients the error is likely to have reduced therapeutic efficacy. More accurate methods to implant STN-DBS electrodes relative to the ideal stimulation location are needed.

Accuracy of the robot-assisted procedure in deep brain stimulation

INTRODUCTION

The use of a robot-assisted technology becomes very competitive. The aim of this work was to define the accuracy of robotic assistance in deep brain stimulation surgery and to compare results with that in the literature.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the accuracy of lead implantation in 24 consecutive patients who had robot-assisted (ROSA, Zimmer-Biomet) surgery for the treatment of movement disorders. Intended stereotactic coordinates (x, y, z) of contact 0 (the most distal contact at the tip of the electrode) of each definitive lead were compared with actual coordinates obtained by a postoperative CT scan. For each lead, the euclidian 3D distance between the actual and intended location of contact 0 was calculated.

RESULTS

The euclidian 3D distances between the intended and actual location of the contact 0 were 0.81 mm on the right side and 1.12 mm on the left side.

DISCUSSION

Robot-assisted technology for stereotactic surgery is safe and accurate. The association with a 3D flat-panel CT scan is an optimized procedure for deep intracranial electrode implantation.

Accuracy of Intraoperative Computed Tomography in Deep Brain Stimulation-A Prospective Noninferiority Study

Introduction

Clinical response to deep brain stimulation (DBS) strongly depends on the appropriate placement of the electrode in the targeted structure. Postoperative MRI is recognized as the gold standard to verify the DBS‐electrode position in relation to the intended anatomical target. However, intraoperative computed tomography (iCT) might be a feasible alternative to MRI.

Materials and Methods

In this prospective noninferiority study, we compared iCT with postoperative MRI (24‐72 hours after surgery) in 29 consecutive patients undergoing placement of 58 DBS electrodes. The primary outcome was defined as the difference in Euclidean distance between lead tip coordinates as determined on both imaging modalities, using the lead tip depicted on MRI as reference. Secondary outcomes were difference in radial error and depth, as well as difference in accuracy relative to target.

Results

The mean difference between the lead tips was 0.98 ± 0.49 mm (0.97 ± 0.47 mm for the left‐sided electrodes and 1.00 ± 0.53 mm for the right‐sided electrodes). The upper confidence interval (95% CI, 0.851 to 1.112) did not exceed the noninferiority margin established. The average radial error between lead tips was 0.74 ± 0.48 mm and the average depth error was determined to be 0.53 ± 0.40 mm. The linear Deming regression indicated a good agreement between both imaging modalities regarding accuracy relative to target.

Conclusions

Intraoperative CT is noninferior to MRI for the verification of the DBS‐electrode position. CT and MRI have their specific benefits, but both should be considered equally suitable for assessing accuracy.

Review on Factors Affecting Targeting Accuracy of Deep Brain Stimulation Electrode Implantation between 2001 and 2015

BACKGROUND

Accurate implantation of a depth electrode into the brain is of the greatest importance in deep brain stimulation (DBS), and various stereotactic systems have been developed for electrode implantation. However, an updated analysis of depth electrode implantation in the modern era of DBS is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims at providing an updated review on targeting accuracy of DBS electrode implantation by analyzing contemporary DBS electrode implantation operations from the perspective of precision engineering.

METHODS

Eligible articles with information on targeting accuracy of DBS electrode implantation were searched in the PubMed database.

RESULTS

An average targeting error of DBS electrode implantation is reported to decrease toward 1 mm; the standard deviation of targeting error is decreasing toward 0.5 mm. Targeting accuracy is not only found to be affected by individual surgical steps, but also systematically affected by the architecture of the implantation operation.

CONCLUSION

A systematic strategy should be adopted to further improve the targeting accuracy of depth electrode implantation. Attention should be paid to optimizing the whole electrode implantation operation, which can help minimize error accumulation or amplification throughout the serially connected procedures for DBS electrode implantation.

The importance of testing deep brain stimulation lead impedances before final lead implantation

Background:

In the setting of a deep brain stimulation (DBS) lead with defective electrical circuitry, potential patient morbidity and additional surgery may be avoided if impedance testing of the brain lead is performed prior to final lead implantation. In the present report, detection of a short circuit upon lead placement and prior to lead anchoring was detected utilizing recently released DBS hardware and software (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN). This report suggests that neurosurgeons need to be aware and consider the use of the newly available DBS testing equipment.

Methods:

During the first DBS lead placement in a 69-year-old man with advanced idiopathic Parkinson's disease undergoing bilateral subthalamic nucleus DBS over staged procedures, test stimulation and lead impedance testing were accomplished prior to lead anchoring. An external neurostimulator (ENS) was affixed to an updated clinician programmer and connected to the DBS lead with a screening cable specific for the ENS and DBS.

Results:

Impedance testing demonstrated a short circuit involving the 1 and 3 lead-electrode bipolar combination in a visually intact lead. The lead was replaced, repeat impedance testing and test stimulation were completed and the intact lead was secured. Subsequent DBS surgeries were completed uneventfully. The lead abnormality was verified by the manufacturer.

Conclusions:

This case highlights a new method to test DBS lead circuitry at the time of placement. The method may also be employed to directly test lead integrity when localizing a DBS system short or open circuit of unclear etiology. Our case suggests that the method is valuable and should be utilized.