22 research outputs found

    Getting the best outcomes from epilepsy surgery

    No full text

    Accuracy of intracranial electrode placement for stereoencephalography:A systematic review and meta-analysis

    Get PDF
    OBJECTIVE: Stereoencephalography (SEEG) is a procedure in which electrodes are inserted into the brain to help define the epileptogenic zone. This is performed prior to definitive epilepsy surgery in patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy when noninvasive data are inconclusive. The main risk of the procedure is hemorrhage, which occurs in 1-2% of patients. This may result from inaccurate electrode placement or a planned electrode damaging a blood vessel that was not detected on the preoperative vascular imaging. Proposed techniques include the use of a stereotactic frame, frameless image guidance systems, robotic guidance systems, and customized patient-specific fixtures. METHODS: Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, a structured search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases identified studies that involve the following: (1) SEEG placement as part of the presurgical workup in patients with (2) drug-resistant focal epilepsy for which (3) accuracy data have been provided. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty-six publications were retrieved, of which 293 were screened following removal of duplicate and non-English-language studies. Following application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 15 studies were included in the qualitative and quantitative synthesis of the meta-analysis. Accuracies for SEEG electrode implantations have been combined using a random-effects analysis and stratified by technique. SIGNIFICANCE: The published literature regarding accuracy of SEEG implantation techniques is limited. There are no prospective controlled clinical trials comparing different SEEG implantation techniques. Significant systematic heterogeneity exists between the identified studies, preventing any meaningful comparison between techniques. The recent introduction of robotic trajectory guidance systems has been suggested to provide a more accurate method of implantation, but supporting evidence is limited to class 3 only. It is important that new techniques are compared to the previous "gold-standard" through well-designed and methodologically sound studies before they are introduced into widespread clinical practice

    Refining Planning for Stereoelectroencephalography:A Prospective Validation of Spatial Priors for Computer-Assisted Planning With Application of Dynamic Learning

    Get PDF
    OBJECTIVE: Stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) is a procedure in which many electrodes are stereotactically implanted within different regions of the brain to estimate the epileptogenic zone in patients with drug-refractory focal epilepsy. Computer-assisted planning (CAP) improves risk scores, gray matter sampling, orthogonal drilling angles to the skull and intracerebral length in a fraction of the time required for manual planning. Due to differences in planning practices, such algorithms may not be generalizable between institutions. We provide a prospective validation of clinically feasible trajectories using “spatial priors” derived from previous implantations and implement a machine learning classifier to adapt to evolving planning practices. METHODS: Thirty-two patients underwent consecutive SEEG implantations utilizing computer-assisted planning over 2 years. Implanted electrodes from the first 12 patients (108 electrodes) were used as a training set from which entry and target point spatial priors were generated. CAP was then prospectively performed using the spatial priors in a further test set of 20 patients (210 electrodes). A K-nearest neighbor (K-NN) machine learning classifier was implemented as an adaptive learning method to modify the spatial priors dynamically. RESULTS: All of the 318 prospective computer-assisted planned electrodes were implanted without complication. Spatial priors developed from the training set generated clinically feasible trajectories in 79% of the test set. The remaining 21% required entry or target points outside of the spatial priors. The K-NN classifier was able to dynamically model real-time changes in the spatial priors in order to adapt to the evolving planning requirements. CONCLUSIONS: We provide spatial priors for common SEEG trajectories that prospectively integrate clinically feasible trajectory planning practices from previous SEEG implantations. This allows institutional SEEG experience to be incorporated and used to guide future implantations. The deployment of a K-NN classifier may improve the generalisability of the algorithm by dynamically modifying the spatial priors in real-time as further implantations are performed

    The Effect of Vascular Segmentation Methods on Stereotactic Trajectory Planning for Drug-Resistant Focal Epilepsy:A Retrospective Cohort Study

    Get PDF
    Background: Stereotactic neurosurgical procedures carry a risk of intracranial hemorrhage, which may result in significant morbidity and mortality. Vascular imaging is crucial for planning stereotactic procedures to prevent conflicts with intracranial vasculature. There is a wide range of vascular imaging methods used for stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) trajectory planning. Computer-assisted planning (CAP) improves planning time and trajectory metrics. We aimed to quantify the effect of different vascular imaging protocols on CAP trajectories for SEEG. Methods: Ten patients who had undergone SEEG (95 electrodes) following preoperative acquisition of gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MR + Gad), magnetic resonance angiography and magnetic resonance angiography (MRV + MRA), and digital subtraction catheter angiography (DSA) were identified from a prospectively maintained database. SEEG implantations were planned using CAP using DSA segmentations as the gold standard. Strategies were then recreated using MRV + MRA and MR + Gad to define the “apparent” and “true” risk scores associated with each modality. Vessels of varying diameter were then iteratively removed from the DSA segmentation to identify the size at which all 3 vascular modalities returned the same safety metrics. Results: CAP performed using DSA vessel segmentations resulted in significantly lower “true” risk scores and greater minimum distances from vasculature compared with the “true” risk associated with MR + Gad and MRV + MRA. MRV + MRA and MR + Gad returned similar risk scores to DSA when vessels <2 mm and <4 mm were not considered, respectively. Conclusions: Significant variability in vascular imaging and trajectory planning practices exist for SEEG. CAP performed with MR + Gad or MRV + MRA alone returns “falsely” lower risk scores compared with DSA. It is unclear whether DSA is oversensitive and thus restricting potential trajectories

    Computer-Assisted Planning for Stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG)

    Get PDF
    Stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) is a diagnostic procedure in which multiple electrodes are stereotactically implanted within predefined areas of the brain to identify the seizure onset zone, which needs to be removed to achieve remission of focal epilepsy. Computer-assisted planning (CAP) has been shown to improve trajectory safety metrics and generate clinically feasible trajectories in a fraction of the time needed for manual planning. We report a prospective validation study of the use of EpiNav (UCL, London, UK) as a clinical decision support software for SEEG. Thirteen consecutive patients (125 electrodes) undergoing SEEG were prospectively recruited. EpiNav was used to generate 3D models of critical structures (including vasculature) and other important regions of interest. Manual planning utilizing the same 3D models was performed in advance of CAP. CAP was subsequently employed to automatically generate a plan for each patient. The treating neurosurgeon was able to modify CAP generated plans based on their preference. The plan with the lowest risk score metric was stereotactically implanted. In all cases (13/13), the final CAP generated plan returned a lower mean risk score and was stereotactically implanted. No complication or adverse event occurred. CAP trajectories were generated in 30% of the time with significantly lower risk scores compared to manually generated. EpiNav has successfully been integrated as a clinical decision support software (CDSS) into the clinical pathway for SEEG implantations at our institution. To our knowledge, this is the first prospective study of a complex CDSS in stereotactic neurosurgery and provides the highest level of evidence to date

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

    Get PDF
    Abstract 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. Trial registration: ISRCTN17209025 ( https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN17209025 )

    Automated fiber tract reconstruction for surgery planning:Extensive validation in language-related white matter tracts

    Get PDF
    Diffusion MRI and tractography hold great potential for surgery planning, especially to preserve eloquent white matter during resections. However, fiber tract reconstruction requires an expert with detailed understanding of neuroanatomy. Several automated approaches have been proposed, using different strategies to reconstruct the white matter tracts in a supervised fashion. However, validation is often limited to comparison with manual delineation by overlap-based measures, which is limited in characterizing morphological and topological differences. In this work, we set up a fully automated pipeline based on anatomical criteria that does not require manual intervention, taking advantage of atlas-based criteria and advanced acquisition protocols available on clinical-grade MRI scanners. Then, we extensively validated it on epilepsy patients with specific focus on language-related bundles. The validation procedure encompasses different approaches, including simple overlap with manual segmentations from two experts, feasibility ratings from external multiple clinical raters and relation with task-based functional MRI. Overall, our results demonstrate good quantitative agreement between automated and manual segmentation, in most cases better performances of the proposed method in qualitative terms, and meaningful relationships with task-based fMRI. In addition, we observed significant differences between experts in terms of both manual segmentation and external ratings. These results offer important insights on how different levels of validation complement each other, supporting the idea that overlap-based measures, although quantitative, do not offer a full perspective on the similarities and differences between automated and manual methods
    corecore