Intraoperative 3D imaging control during subthalamic Deep Brain Stimulation procedures using O-arm® technology: Experience in 15 patients

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.

Robotic-Assisted Navigation for Stereotactic Neurosurgery: A Cadaveric Investigation of Accuracy, Time, and Radiation

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Despite frequent use, stereotactic head frames require manual coordinate calculations and manual frame settings that are associated with human error. This study examines freestanding robot-assisted navigation (RAN) as a means to reduce the drawbacks of traditional cranial stereotaxy and improve targeting accuracy.

METHODS

Seven cadaveric human torsos with heads were tested with 8 anatomic coordinates selected for lead placement mirrored in each hemisphere. Right and left hemispheres of the brain were randomly assigned to either the traditional stereotactic arc-based (ARC) group or the RAN group. Both target accuracy and trajectory accuracy were measured. Procedural time and the radiation required for registration were also measured.

RESULTS

The accuracy of the RAN group was significantly greater than that of the ARC group in both target (1.2 ± 0.5 mm vs 1.7 ± 1.2 mm, P = .005) and trajectory (0.9 ± 0.6 mm vs 1.3 ± 0.9 mm, P = .004) measurements. Total procedural time was also significantly faster for the RAN group than for the ARC group (44.6 ± 7.7 minutes vs 86.0 ± 12.5 minutes, P < .001). The RAN group had significantly reduced time per electrode placement (2.9 ± 0.9 minutes vs 5.8 ± 2.0 minutes, P < .001) and significantly reduced radiation during registration (1.9 ± 1.1 mGy vs 76.2 ± 5.0 mGy, P < .001) compared with the ARC group.

CONCLUSION

In this cadaveric study, cranial leads were placed faster and with greater accuracy using RAN than those placed with conventional stereotactic arc-based technique. RAN also required significantly less radiation to register the specimen's coordinate system to the planned trajectories. Clinical testing should be performed to further investigate RAN for stereotactic cranial surgery.

STN-DBS electrode placement accuracy and motor improvement in Parkinson's disease: systematic review and individual patient meta-analysis

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the subthalamic nucleus (STN) is an effective neurosurgical treatment for Parkinson's disease. Surgical accuracy is a critical determinant to achieve an adequate DBS effect on motor performance. A two-millimetre surgical accuracy is commonly accepted, but scientific evidence is lacking. A systematic review and meta-analysis of study-level and individual patient data (IPD) was performed by a comprehensive search in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library. Primary outcome measures were (1) radial error between the implanted electrode and target; (2) DBS motor improvement on the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale part III (motor examination). On a study level, meta-regression analysis was performed. Also, publication bias was assessed. For IPD meta-analysis, a linear mixed effects model was used. Forty studies (1391 patients) were included, reporting radial errors of 0.45-1.86 mm. Errors within this range did not significantly influence the DBS effect on motor improvement. Additional IPD analysis (206 patients) revealed that a mean radial error of 1.13±0.75 mm did not significantly change the extent of DBS motor improvement. Our meta-analysis showed a huge publication bias on accuracy data in DBS. Therefore, the current literature does not provide an unequivocal upper threshold for acceptable accuracy of STN-DBS surgery. Based on the current literature, DBS-electrodes placed within a 2 mm range of the intended target do not have to be repositioned to enhance motor improvement after STN-DBS for Parkinson's disease. However, an indisputable upper cut-off value for surgical accuracy remains to be established. PROSPERO registration number is CRD42018089539.

Dental 3D Printing Design Based on Neurodegeneration and Virtual Reality Imaging Technology

Objective

To model and compare the stress variation and distribution of the implant and its supporting components under two types of loading with the abutment in the axial and coronal lingual augmentation positions by means of the 3D finite element method.

Method

15 all-ceramic crowns completed by the same technician between the years 2014 and 2015 were randomly selected. A high precision laser scanner was used to scan the specimen models of all-ceramic crowns and then converted and imported into the promapping software to create 15 solid models each in the axial position of the crown and the lingual augmentation position of the crown.

Results

We showed that the abutments were significantly more stressed in the bone cortex than in the bone cancellous under both loads when the abutments were in the long axis position and in the lingual ridge position of the dentition. The distribution of stresses in the bone tissue was mainly concentrated in the cortical bone. The stresses induced by oblique forces were greater than those induced by vertical forces. When comparing the abutment in the long axis position of the dentition with the lingual ridge position of the dentition, the peak stresses obtained from the stress analysis of the abutment in the lingual ridge position were all increased to different degrees under both loads, and the differences were statistically significant (p < 0.05) suggesting that the design of the abutment in the direction of the long axis of the dentition is less stressful than that of the crown in the lingual augmentation position, and the risk of alveolar ridge resorption and screw fracture is less.

Conclusion

In this paper, we proposed a dental 3D scanning system, which is less stressful based on a 3D reconstruction algorithm using Fourier transform contouring that achieved a speed dental 3D scanner with Fourier transform contouring by projecting a raster pattern onto a dental impression.

Implementation of Intraoperative Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (O-arm) for Stereotactic Imaging During Deep Brain Stimulation Procedures

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative cone-beam computed tomography (iCBCT) allows for rapid 3-dimensional imaging. However, it is currently unknown whether this imaging technique offers sufficient accuracy for stereotactic registration during deep brain stimulation (DBS) procedures.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the accuracy of iCBCT, with the O-arm O2 (Medtronic), for stereotactic registration by comparing this modality to stereotactic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

METHODS

All DBS patients underwent a preoperative non-stereotactic 3 Tesla MRI, stereotactic 1.5 Tesla MRI, stereotactic O-arm iCBCT, postimplantation O-arm iCBCT, and postoperative conventional multidetector computed tomography (CT) scan. We compared stereotactic (X, Y, and Z) coordinates of the anterior commissure (AC), the posterior commissure (PC), and midline reference (MR) between stereotactic MRI and iCBCT. For localisation comparison of electrode contacts, stereotactic coordinates of electrode tips were compared between the postoperative multidetector CT and iCBCT.

RESULTS

A total of 20 patients were evaluated. The average absolute difference in stereotactic coordinates of AC, PC, and MR was 0.4 ± 0.4 mm for X, 0.4 ± 0.4 mm for Y, and 0.7 ± 0.5 mm for Z. The average absolute difference in X-, Y-, and Z-coordinates for electrode localisation (N = 34) was 0.3 ± 0.3 mm, 0.6 ± 0.3 mm, and 0.6 ± 0.6 mm. These differences were small enough not to be considered clinically relevant.

CONCLUSION

Stereotactic MRI and O-arm iCBCT yield comparable coordinates in pre- and postoperative imaging. Differences found are below the threshold of clinical relevance. Intraoperative O-arm CBCT offers rapid stereotactic registration and evaluation of electrode placement. This increases patient comfort and neurosurgical workflow efficiency.

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.

Frameless ROSA® Robot-Assisted Lead Implantation for Deep Brain Stimulation: Technique and Accuracy

BACKGROUND

Frameless robotic-assisted surgery is an innovative technique for deep brain stimulation (DBS) that has not been assessed in a large cohort of patients.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate accuracy of DBS lead placement using the ROSA® robot (Zimmer Biomet) and a frameless registration.

METHODS

All patients undergoing DBS surgery in our institution between 2012 and 2016 were prospectively included in an open label single-center study. Accuracy was evaluated by measuring the radial error (RE) of the first stylet implanted on each side and the RE of the final lead position at the target level. RE was measured on intraoperative telemetric X-rays (group 1), on intraoperative O-Arm® (Medtronic) computed tomography (CT) scans (group 2), and on postoperative CT scans or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in both groups.

RESULTS

Of 144 consecutive patients, 119 were eligible for final analysis (123 DBS; 186 stylets; 192 leads). In group 1 (76 patients), the mean RE of the stylet was 0.57 ± 0.02 mm, 0.72 ± 0.03 mm for DBS lead measured intraoperatively, and 0.88 ± 0.04 mm for DBS lead measured postoperatively on CT scans. In group 2 (43 patients), the mean RE of the stylet was 0.68 ± 0.05 mm, 0.75 ± 0.04 mm for DBS lead measured intraoperatively; 0.86 ± 0.05 mm and 1.10 ± 0.08 mm for lead measured postoperatively on CT scans and on MRI, respectively No statistical difference regarding the RE of the final lead position was found between the different intraoperative imaging modalities and postoperative CT scans in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Frameless ROSA® robot-assisted technique for DBS reached submillimeter accuracy. Intraoperative CT scans appeared to be reliable and sufficient to evaluate the final lead position.

Deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease: current status and future outlook

Parkinson's disease is a neurodegenerative condition secondary to loss of dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra pars compacta. Surgical therapy serves as an adjunct when unwanted medication side effects become apparent or additional therapy is needed. Deep brain stimulation emerged into the forefront in the 1990s. Studies have demonstrated improvement in all of the cardinal parkinsonian signs with stimulation. Frameless and ‘mini-frame’ stereotactic systems, improved MRI for anatomic visualization, and intraoperative MRI-guided placement are a few of the surgical advances in deep brain stimulation. Other advances include rechargeable pulse generators, voltage- or current-based stimulation, and enhanced abilities to ‘steer’ stimulation. Work is ongoing investigating closed-loop ‘smart’ stimulation in which stimulation is predicated on neuronal feedback.