Evaluating geometric accuracy of multi-platform stereotactic neuroimaging in radiosurgery

Reliability of stereotactic coordinates of 1.5-tesla and 3-tesla MRI in radiosurgery and functional neurosurgery

Objective

The aims of this study are to identify interpersonal differences in defining coordinates and to figure out the degree of distortion of the MRI and compare the accuracy between CT, 1.5-tesla (T) and 3.0T MRI.

Methods

We compared coordinates in the CT images defined by 2 neurosurgeons. We also calculated the errors of 1.5T MRI and those of 3.0T. We compared the errors of the 1.5T with those of the 3.0T. In addition, we compared the errors in each sequence and in each axis.

Results

The mean difference in the CT images between the two neurosurgeons was 0.48±0.22 mm. The mean errors of the 1.5T were 1.55±0.48 mm (T1), 0.75±0.38 (T2), and 1.07±0.57 (FLAIR) and those of the 3.0T were 2.35±0.53 (T1), 2.18±0.76 (T2), and 2.16±0.77 (FLAIR). The smallest mean errors out of all the axes were in the x axis : 0.28-0.34 (1.5T) and 0.31-0.52 (3.0T). The smallest errors out of all the MRI sequences were in the T2 : 0.29-0.58 (1.5T) and 0.31-1.85 (3.0T).

Conclusion

There was no interpersonal difference in running the Gamma Plan® to define coordinates. The errors of the 3.0T were greater than those of the 1.5T, and these errors were not of an acceptable level. The x coordinate error was the smallest and the z coordinate error was the greatest regardless of the MRI sequence. The T2 sequence was the most accurate sequence.

The role of imaging in the surgical treatment of movement disorders

Functional neurosurgery involves precise surgical targeting of anatomic structures to modulate neurologic function. From its conception, advances in the surgical treatment of movement disorders have been intertwined with developments in medical imaging, culminating in the use of stereotactic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Meticulous attention to detail during image acquisition, direct anatomic localization, and planning of the initial surgical trajectory allows the surgeon to reach the desired anatomic and functional target with the initial trajectory in most cases, thus reducing the need for multiple passes through the brain, and the associated risk of hemorrhage and functional deficit. This philosophy is of paramount importance in a procedure that is primarily aimed at improving quality of life. Documentation of electrode contact location by means of stereotactic imaging is essential to audit surgical targeting accuracy and to further the knowledge of structure-to-function relationships within the human brain.

Avoiding the ventricle: a simple step to improve accuracy of anatomical targeting during deep brain stimulation

OBJECT

The authors examined the accuracy of anatomical targeting during electrode implantation for deep brain stimulation in functional neurosurgical procedures. Special attention was focused on the impact that ventricular involvement of the electrode trajectory had on targeting accuracy.

METHODS

The targeting error during electrode placement was assessed in 162 electrodes implanted in 109 patients at 2 centers. The targeting error was calculated as the shortest distance from the intended stereotactic coordinates to the final electrode trajectory as defined on postoperative stereotactic imaging. The trajectory of these electrodes in relation to the lateral ventricles was also analyzed on postoperative images.

RESULTS

The trajectory of 68 electrodes involved the ventricle. The targeting error for all electrodes was calculated: the mean +/- SD and the 95% CI of the mean was 1.5 +/- 1.0 and 0.1 mm, respectively. The same calculations for targeting error for electrode trajectories that did not involve the ventricle were 1.2 +/- 0.7 and 0.1 mm. A significantly larger targeting error was seen in trajectories that involved the ventricle (1.9 +/- 1.1 and 0.3 mm; p < 0.001). Thirty electrodes (19%) required multiple passes before final electrode implantation on the basis of physiological and/or clinical observations. There was a significant association between an increased requirement for multiple brain passes and ventricular involvement in the trajectory (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Planning an electrode trajectory that avoids the ventricles is a simple precaution that significantly improves the accuracy of anatomical targeting during electrode placement for deep brain stimulation. Avoidance of the ventricles appears to reduce the need for multiple passes through the brain to reach the desired target as defined by clinical and physiological observations.

Comparison of imaging modalities for the accurate delineation of arteriovenous malformation, with reference to stereotactic radiosurgery

PURPOSE

To investigate the discrepancy between the arteriovenous malformations seen on magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) and on stereotactic digital subtracted angiography (DSA).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The target volume on stereotactic DSA (V(DSA)) and the target volume on MRA (V(MRA)) were separately delineated in 28 intracranial arteriovenous malformations. The coordinates of the center and the outer edges of V(DSA) and V(MRA) were calculated and used for the analyses.

RESULTS

The standard deviations (mean value) of the displacement of centers of V(MRA) from V(DSA) were 2.67 mm (-1.82 mm) in the left-right direction, 3.23 mm (-0.08 mm) in the anterior-posterior direction, and 2.16 mm (0.91 mm) in the craniocaudal direction. V(MRA) covered less than 80% of V(DSA) in any dimensions in 9 cases (32%), although no significant difference was seen in the target volume between each method, with a mean value of 11.9 cc for V(DSA) and 12.3 cc for V(MRA) (p = 0.948).

CONCLUSION

The shift of centers between each modality is not negligible. Considering no significant difference between V(DSA) and V(MRA), but inadequate coverage of the V(DSA) by V(MRA), it is reasonable to consider that the target on MRA might include the feeding artery and draining vein and possibly miss a portion of the nidus.

Analyzing 3-tesla magnetic resonance imaging units for implementation in radiosurgery

OBJECT

The limiting factor affecting accuracy during gamma knife surgery is image quality. The new generation of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging units with field strength up to 3 teslas promise superior image quality for anatomical resolution and contrast. There are, however, questions about chemical shifts or susceptibility effects, which are the subject of this paper.

METHODS

The 3-tesla MR imaging unit (Siemens Trio) was analyzed and compared with a 1-tesla unit (Siemens Magnetom Expert) and to a 1.5-tesla unit (Philips Gyroscan). Evaluation of the magnitude of error was performed within transverse slices in two orientations (axial/coronal) by using a cylindrical phantom with an embedded grid. Deviations were determined for 21 targets in a slab phantom with known geometrical positions within the stereotactic frame. Distortions caused by chemical shift and/or susceptibility effects were analyzed in a head phantom. Inhouse software was used for data analyses. The mean deviation was less than 0.3 mm in axial and less than 0.4 mm in coronal orientations. For the known targets the maximum deviation was 1.16 mm. By optimizing these parameters in the protocol these inaccuracies could be reduced to less than 1.1 mm. Due to inhomogeneities a shift in the z direction of up to 1.5 mm was observed for a dataset, which was shown to be compressed by 1.2 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

The 3-tesla imaging unit showed superior anatomical contrast and resolution in comparison with the established 1-tesla and 1.5-tesla units; however, due to the high field strength the field within the head coil is very sensitive to inhomogeneities and therefore 3-tesla imaging data will have be handled with care.

Analyzing 3-tesla magnetic resonance imaging units for implementation in radiosurgery

Object. The limiting factor affecting accuracy during gamma knife surgery is image quality. The new generation of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging units with field strength up to 3 teslas promise superior image quality for anatomical resolution and contrast. There are, however, questions about chemical shifts or susceptibility effects, which are the subject of this paper.

Methods. The 3-tesla MR imaging unit (Siemens Trio) was analyzed and compared with a 1-tesla unit (Siemens Magnetom Expert) and to a 1.5-tesla unit (Philips Gyroscan). Evaluation of the magnitude of error was performed within transverse slices in two orientations (axial/coronal) by using a cylindrical phantom with an embedded grid. Deviations were determined for 21 targets in a slab phantom with known geometrical positions within the stereotactic frame. Distortions caused by chemical shift and/or susceptibility effects were analyzed in a head phantom. Inhouse software was used for data analyses.

The mean deviation was less than 0.3 mm in axial and less than 0.4 mm in coronal orientations. For the known targets the maximum deviation was 1.16 mm. By optimizing these parameters in the protocol these inaccuracies could be reduced to less than 1.1 mm. Due to inhomogeneities a shift in the z direction of up to 1.5 mm was observed for a dataset, which was shown to be compressed by 1.2 mm.

Conclusions. The 3-tesla imaging unit showed superior anatomical contrast and resolution in comparison with the established 1-tesla and 1.5-tesla units; however, due to the high field strength the field within the head coil is very sensitive to inhomogeneities and therefore 3-tesla imaging data will have be handled with care.