Computer-Assisted Planning and Robotics in Epilepsy Surgery

Epilepsy is a severe and devastating condition that affects ~1% of the population. Around 30% of these patients are drug-refractory. Epilepsy surgery may provide a cure in selected individuals with drug-resistant focal epilepsy if the epileptogenic zone can be identified and safely resected or ablated. Stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) is a diagnostic procedure that is performed to aid in the delineation of the seizure onset zone when non-invasive investigations are not sufficiently informative or discordant. Utilizing a multi-modal imaging platform, a novel computer-assisted planning (CAP) algorithm was adapted, applied and clinically validated for optimizing safe SEEG trajectory planning. In an initial retrospective validation study, 13 patients with 116 electrodes were enrolled and safety parameters between automated CAP trajectories and expert manual plans were compared. The automated CAP trajectories returned statistically significant improvements in all of the compared clinical metrics including overall risk score (CAP 0.57 +/- 0.39 (mean +/- SD) and manual 1.00 +/- 0.60, p < 0.001). Assessment of the inter-rater variability revealed there was no difference in external expert surgeon ratings. Both manual and CAP electrodes were rated as feasible in 42.8% (42/98) of cases. CAP was able to provide feasible electrodes in 19.4% (19/98), whereas manual planning was able to generate a feasible electrode in 26.5% (26/98) when the alternative generation method was not feasible. Based on the encouraging results from the retrospective analysis a prospective validation study including an additional 125 electrodes in 13 patients was then undertaken to compare CAP to expert manual plans from two neurosurgeons. The manual plans were performed separately and blindly from the CAP. Computer-generated trajectories were found to carry lower risks scores (absolute difference of 0.04 mm (95% CI = -0.42-0.01), p = 0.04) and were subsequently implanted in all cases without complication. The pipeline has been fully integrated into the clinical service and has now replaced manual SEEG planning at our institution. Further efforts were then focused on the distillation of optimal entry and target points for common SEEG trajectories and applying machine learning methods to develop an active learning algorithm to adapt to individual surgeon preferences. Thirty-two patients were prospectively enrolled in the study. The first 12 patients underwent prospective CAP planning and implantation following the pipeline outlined in the previous study. These patients were used as a training set and all of the 108 electrodes after successful implantation were normalized to atlas space to generate ‘spatial priors’, using a K-Nearest Neighbour (K-NN) classifier. A subsequent test set of 20 patients (210 electrodes) were then used to prospectively validate the spatial priors. From the test set, 78% (123/157) of the implanted trajectories passed through both the entry and target spatial priors defined from the training set. To improve the generalizability of the spatial priors to other neurosurgical centres undertaking SEEG and to take into account the potential for changing institutional practices, an active learning algorithm was implemented. The K-NN classifier was shown to dynamically learn and refine the spatial priors. The progressive refinement of CAP SEEG planning outlined in this and previous studies has culminated in an algorithm that not only optimizes the surgical heuristics and risk scores related to SEEG planning but can also learn from previous experience. Overall, safe and feasible trajectory schema were returning in 30% of the time required for manual SEEG planning. Computer-assisted planning was then applied to optimize laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) trajectory planning, which is a minimally invasive alternative to open mesial temporal resections, focal lesion ablation and anterior 2/3 corpus callosotomy. We describe and validate the first CAP algorithm for mesial temporal LITT ablations for epilepsy treatment. Twenty-five patients that had previously undergone LITT ablations at a single institution and with a median follow up of 2 years were included. Trajectory parameters for the CAP algorithm were derived from expert consensus to maximize distance from vasculature and ablation of the amygdalohippocampal complex, minimize collateral damage to adjacent brain structures whilst avoiding transgression of the ventricles and sulci. Trajectory parameters were also optimized to reduce the drilling angle to the skull and overall catheter length. Simulated cavities attributable to the CAP trajectories were calculated using a 5-15 mm ablation diameter. In comparison to manually planned and implemented LITT trajectories,CAP resulted in a significant increase in the percentage ablation of the amygdalohippocampal complex (manual 57.82 +/- 15.05% (mean +/- S.D.) and unablated medial hippocampal head depth (manual 4.45 +/- 1.58 mm (mean +/- S.D.), CAP 1.19 +/- 1.37 (mean +/- S.D.), p = 0.0001). As LITT ablation of the mesial temporal structures is a novel procedure there are no established standards for trajectory planning. A data-driven machine learning approach was, therefore, applied to identify hitherto unknown CAP trajectory parameter combinations. All possible combinations of planning parameters were calculated culminating in 720 unique combinations per patient. Linear regression and random forest machine learning algorithms were trained on half of the data set (3800 trajectories) and tested on the remaining unseen trajectories (3800 trajectories). The linear regression and random forest methods returned good predictive accuracies with both returning Pearson correlations of ρ = 0.7 and root mean squared errors of 0.13 and 0.12 respectively. The machine learning algorithm revealed that the optimal entry points were centred over the junction of the inferior occipital, middle temporal and middle occipital gyri. The optimal target points were anterior and medial translations of the centre of the amygdala. A large multicenter external validation study of 95 patients was then undertaken comparing the manually planned and implemented trajectories, CAP trajectories targeting the centre of the amygdala, the CAP parameters derived from expert consensus and the CAP trajectories utilizing the machine learning derived parameters. Three external blinded expert surgeons were then selected to undertake feasibility ratings and preference rankings of the trajectories. CAP generated trajectories result in a significant improvement in many of the planning metrics, notably the risk score (manual 1.3 +/- 0.1 (mean +/- S.D.), CAP 1.1 +/- 0.2 (mean +/- S.D.), p<0.000) and overall ablation of the amygdala (manual 45.3 +/- 22.2 % (mean +/- S.D.), CAP 64.2 +/- 20 % (mean +/- S.D.), p<0.000). Blinded external feasibility ratings revealed that manual trajectories were less preferable than CAP planned trajectories with an estimated probability of being ranked 4th (lowest) of 0.62. Traditional open corpus callosotomy requires a midline craniotomy, interhemispheric dissection and disconnection of the rostrum, genu and body of the corpus callosum. In cases where drop attacks persist a completion corpus callosotomy to disrupt the remaining fibres in the splenium is then performed. The emergence of LITT technology has raised the possibility of being able to undertake this procedure in a minimally invasive fashion and without the need for a craniotomy using two or three individual trajectories. Early case series have shown LITT anterior two-thirds corpus callosotomy to be safe and efficacious. Whole-brain probabilistic tractography connectomes were generated utilizing 3-Tesla multi-shell imaging data and constrained spherical deconvolution (CSD). Two independent blinded expert neurosurgeons with experience of performing the procedure using LITT then planned the trajectories in each patient following their current clinical practice. Automated trajectories returned a significant reduction in the risk score (manual 1.3 +/- 0.1 (mean +/- S.D.), CAP 1.1 +/- 0.1 (mean +/- S.D.), p<0.000). Finally, we investigate the different methods of surgical implantation for SEEG electrodes. As an initial study, a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to date were performed. This revealed a wide variety of implantation methods including traditional frame-based, frameless, robotic and custom-3D printed jigs were being used in clinical practice. Of concern, all comparative reports from institutions that had changed from one implantation method to another, such as following the introduction of robotic systems, did not undertake parallel-group comparisons. This suggests that patients may have been exposed to risks associated with learning curves and potential harms related to the new device until the efficacy was known. A pragmatic randomized control trial of a novel non-CE marked robotic trajectory guidance system (iSYS1) was then devised. Before clinical implantations began a series of pre-clinical investigations utilizing 3D printed phantom heads from previously implanted patients was performed to provide pilot data and also assess the surgical learning curve. The surgeons had comparatively little clinical experience with the new robotic device which replicates the introduction of such novel technologies to clinical practice. The study confirmed that the learning curve with the iSYS1 devices was minimal and the accuracies and workflow were similar to the conventional manual method. The randomized control trial represents the first of its kind for stereotactic neurosurgical procedures. Thirty-two patients were enrolled with 16 patients randomized to the iSYS1 intervention arm and 16 patients to the manual implantation arm. The intervention allocation was concealed from the patients. The surgical and research team could be not blinded. Trial management, independent data monitoring and trial steering committees were convened at four points doing the trial (after every 8 patients implanted). Based on the high level of accuracy required for both methods, the main distinguishing factor would be the time to achieve the alignment to the prespecified trajectory. The primary outcome for comparison, therefore, was the time for individual SEEG electrode implantation. Secondary outcomes included the implantation accuracy derived from the post-operative CT scan, infection, intracranial haemorrhage and neurological deficit rates. Overall, 32 patients (328 electrodes) completed the trial (16 in each intervention arm) and the baseline demographics were broadly similar between the two groups. The time for individual electrode implantation was significantly less with the iSYS1 device (median of 3.36 (95% CI 5.72 to 7.07) than for the PAD group (median of 9.06 minutes (95% CI 8.16 to 10.06), p=0.0001). Target point accuracy was significantly greater with the PAD (median of 1.58 mm (95% CI 1.38 to 1.82) compared to the iSYS1 (median of 1.16 mm (95% CI 1.01 to 1.33), p=0.004). The difference between the target point accuracies are not clinically significant for SEEG but may have implications for procedures such as deep brain stimulation that require higher placement accuracy. All of the electrodes achieved their respective intended anatomical targets. In 12 of 16 patients following robotic implantations, and 10 of 16 following manual PAD implantations a seizure onset zone was identified and resection recommended. The aforementioned systematic review and meta-analysis were updated to include additional studies published during the trial duration. In this context, the iSYS1 device entry and target point accuracies were similar to those reported in other published studies of robotic devices including the ROSA, Neuromate and iSYS1. The PAD accuracies, however, outperformed the previously published results for other frameless stereotaxy methods. In conclusion, the presented studies report the integration and validation of a complex clinical decision support software into the clinical neurosurgical workflow for SEEG planning. The stereotactic planning platform was further refined by integrating machine learning techniques and also extended towards optimisation of LITT trajectories for ablation of mesial temporal structures and corpus callosotomy. The platform was then used to seamlessly integrate with a novel trajectory planning software to effectively and safely guide the implantation of the SEEG electrodes. Through a single-blinded randomised control trial, the ISYS1 device was shown to reduce the time taken for individual electrode insertion. Taken together, this work presents and validates the first fully integrated stereotactic trajectory planning platform that can be used for both SEEG and LITT trajectory planning followed by surgical implantation through the use of a novel trajectory guidance system

Getting the best outcomes from epilepsy surgery.

Neurosurgery is an underutilized treatment that can potentially cure drug-refractory epilepsy. Careful, multidisciplinary presurgical evaluation is vital for selecting patients and to ensure optimal outcomes. Advances in neuroimaging have improved diagnosis and guided surgical intervention. Invasive electroencephalography allows the evaluation of complex patients who would otherwise not be candidates for neurosurgery. We review the current state of the assessment and selection of patients and consider established and novel surgical procedures and associated outcome data. We aim to dispel myths that may inhibit physicians from referring and patients from considering neurosurgical intervention for drug-refractory focal epilepsies. Ann Neurol 2018;83:676-690

Previous, current, and future stereotactic EEG techniques for localising epileptic foci

INTRODUCTION: Drug-resistant focal epilepsy presents a significant morbidity burden globally, and epilepsy surgery has been shown to be an effective treatment modality. Therefore, accurate identification of the epileptogenic zone for surgery is crucial, and in those with unclear noninvasive data, stereoencephalography is required. AREAS COVERED: This review covers the history and current practices in the field of intracranial EEG, particularly analyzing how stereotactic image-guidance, robot-assisted navigation, and improved imaging techniques have increased the accuracy, scope, and use of SEEG globally. EXPERT OPINION: We provide a perspective on the future directions in the field, reviewing improvements in predicting electrode bending, image acquisition, machine learning and artificial intelligence, advances in surgical planning and visualization software and hardware. We also see the development of EEG analysis tools based on machine learning algorithms that are likely to work synergistically with neurophysiology experts and improve the efficiency of EEG and SEEG analysis and 3D visualization. Improving computer-assisted planning to minimize manual input from the surgeon, and seamless integration into an ergonomic and adaptive operating theater, incorporating hybrid microscopes, virtual and augmented reality is likely to be a significant area of improvement in the near future

Retrospective evaluation and SEEG trajectory analysis for interactive multi-trajectory planner assistant

Purpose: Focal epilepsy is a neurological disease that can be surgically treated by removing area of the brain generating the seizures. The stereotactic electroencephalography (SEEG) procedure allows patient brain activity to be recorded in order to localize the onset of seizures through the placement of intracranial electrodes. The planning phase can be cumbersome and very time consuming, and no quantitative information is provided to neurosurgeons regarding the safety and efficacy of their trajectories. In this work, we present a novel architecture specifically designed to ease the SEEG trajectory planning using the 3D Slicer platform as a basis. Methods: Trajectories are automatically optimized following criteria like vessel distance and insertion angle. Multi-trajectory optimization and conflict resolution are optimized through a selective brute force approach based on a conflict graph construction. Additionally, electrode-specific optimization constraints can be defined, and an advanced verification module allows neurosurgeons to evaluate the feasibility of the trajectory. Results: A retrospective evaluation was performed using manually planned trajectories on 20 patients: the planning algorithm optimized and improved trajectories in 98% of cases. We were able to resolve and optimize the remaining 2% by applying electrode-specific constraints based on manual planning values. In addition, we found that the global parameters used discards 68% of the manual planned trajectories, even when they represent a safe clinical choice. Conclusions: Our approach improved manual planned trajectories in 98% of cases in terms of quantitative indexes, even when applying more conservative criteria with respect to actual clinical practice. The improved multi-trajectory strategy overcomes the previous work limitations and allows electrode optimization within a tolerable time span

Review of robotic technology for keyhole transcranial stereotactic neurosurgery

The research of stereotactic apparatus to guide surgical devices began in 1908, yet a major part of today's stereotactic neurosurgeries still rely on stereotactic frames developed almost half a century ago. Robots excel at handling spatial information, and are, thus, obvious candidates in the guidance of instrumentation along precisely planned trajectories. In this review, we introduce the concept of stereotaxy and describe a standard stereotactic neurosurgery. Neurosurgeons' expectations and demands regarding the role of robots as assistive tools are also addressed. We list the most successful robotic systems developed specifically for or capable of executing stereotactic neurosurgery. A critical review is presented for each robotic system, emphasizing the differences between them and detailing positive features and drawbacks. An analysis of the listed robotic system features is also undertaken, in the context of robotic application in stereotactic neurosurgery. Finally, we discuss the current perspective, and future directions of a robotic technology in this field. All robotic systems follow a very similar and structured workflow despite the technical differences that set them apart. No system unequivocally stands out as an absolute best. The trend of technological progress is pointing toward the development of miniaturized cost-effective solutions with more intuitive interfaces.This work has been partially financed by the NETT Project (FP7-PEOPLE-2011-ITN-289146), ACTIVE Project (FP7-ICT-2009-6-270460), and FCT PhD grant (ref. SFRH/BD/86499/2012)

Automated multiple trajectory planning algorithm for the placement of stereo-electroencephalography (SEEG) electrodes in epilepsy treatment.

PURPOSE: About one-third of individuals with focal epilepsy continue to have seizures despite optimal medical management. These patients are potentially curable with neurosurgery if the epileptogenic zone (EZ) can be identified and resected. Stereo-electroencephalography (SEEG) to record epileptic activity with intracranial depth electrodes may be required to identify the EZ. Each SEEG electrode trajectory, the path between the entry on the skull and the cerebral target, must be planned carefully to avoid trauma to blood vessels and conflicts between electrodes. In current clinical practice trajectories are determined manually, typically taking 2-3 h per patient (15 min per electrode). Manual planning (MP) aims to achieve an implantation plan with good coverage of the putative EZ, an optimal spatial resolution, and 3D distribution of electrodes. Computer-assisted planning tools can reduce planning time by quantifying trajectory suitability. METHODS: We present an automated multiple trajectory planning (MTP) algorithm to compute implantation plans. MTP uses dynamic programming to determine a set of plans. From this set a depth-first search algorithm finds a suitable plan. We compared our MTP algorithm to (a) MP and (b) an automated single trajectory planning (STP) algorithm on 18 patient plans containing 165 electrodes. RESULTS: MTP changed all 165 trajectories compared to MP. Changes resulted in lower risk (122), increased grey matter sampling (99), shorter length (92), and surgically preferred entry angles (113). MTP changed 42 % (69/165) trajectories compared to STP. Every plan had between 1 to 8 (median 3.5) trajectories changed to resolve electrode conflicts, resulting in surgically preferred plans. CONCLUSION: MTP is computationally efficient, determining implantation plans containing 7-12 electrodes within 1 min, compared to 2-3 h for MP

Comparison of robotic and manual implantation of intracerebral electrodes: a single-centre, single-blinded, randomised controlled trial

There has been a significant rise in robotic trajectory guidance devices that have been utilised for stereotactic neurosurgical procedures. These devices have significant costs and associated learning curves. Previous studies reporting devices usage have not undertaken prospective parallel-group comparisons before their introduction, so the comparative differences are unknown. We study the difference in stereoelectroencephalography electrode implantation time between a robotic trajectory guidance device (iSYS1) and manual frameless implantation (PAD) in patients with drug-refractory focal epilepsy through a single-blinded randomised control parallel-group investigation of SEEG electrode implantation, concordant with CONSORT statement. Thirty-two patients (18 male) completed the trial. The iSYS1 returned significantly shorter median operative time for intracranial bolt insertion, 6.36 min (95% CI 5.72–7.07) versus 9.06 min (95% CI 8.16–10.06), p = 0.0001. The PAD group had a better median target point accuracy 1.58 mm (95% CI 1.38–1.82) versus 1.16 mm (95% CI 1.01–1.33), p = 0.004. The mean electrode implantation angle error was 2.13° for the iSYS1 group and 1.71° for the PAD groups (p = 0.023). There was no statistically significant difference for any other outcome. Health policy and hospital commissioners should consider these differences in the context of the opportunity cost of introducing robotic devices