Abstract

BackgroundImplantation accuracy of electrodes during neurosurgical interventions is necessary to ensure safety and efficacy. Typically, metrics are computed by visual inspection which is tedious, prone to inter-/intra-observer variation, and difficult to replicate across sites. New MethodWe propose an automated approach for computing implantation metrics and investigate potential sources of error. We focus on accuracy metrics commonly reported in the literature to validate our approach against metrics computed manually including entry point (EP) and target point (TP) localisation errors and angle differences between planned and implanted trajectories in 15 patients with a total of 158 stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) electrodes. We evaluate the effect of line-of-best-fit approaches, EP definition and lateral versus Euclidean distance on metrics to provide recommendations for reporting implantation accuracy metrics. ResultsWe found no bias between manual and automated approaches for calculating accuracy metrics with limits of agreement of ±1 mm and ±1°. Automated metrics are robust to sources of errors including registration and electrode bending. We observe the highest error in EP deviations of μ = 0.25 mm when the post-implantation CT is used to define the point of entry. Comparison with Existing Method(s)We found no reports of automated approaches for quality assessment of SEEG electrode implantation. Neither the choice of metrics nor the possible errors that could occur have been investigated previously. ConclusionsOur automated approach is useful to avoid human errors, unintentional bias and variation that may be introduced when manually computing metrics. Our work is relevant and timely to facilitate comparisons of studies reporting implantation accuracy.

Highlights

  • Stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) is a stereotactic neurosurgical procedure for estimating the Epileptogenic Zone (EZ) in patients with focal refractory epilepsy (Mullin et al, 2016)

  • We found no statistically significant differences in the metrics between automated and manual approaches with the exception of angle differences when characterising the trajectory by bolt axis (W = 4594.50; p = 0.0034) (Table 2, Supplemental Material)

  • We presented an automated approach of SEEG electrode implantation accuracy assessment within a platform that supports all stages of electrode implantation

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) is a stereotactic neurosurgical procedure for estimating the Epileptogenic Zone (EZ) in patients with focal refractory epilepsy (Mullin et al, 2016). It is important to distinguish between physical implantation errors and errors in our ability to measure differences Among those factors which cause implantation errors include: 1) misregistration between planning and navigation scans, 2) registration accuracy of neuronavigation system (ideally below 0.5 mm), 3) positioning of drill guide arm (either robotic or manual), 4) motion of scalp relative to skull (which could cause misalignment of entry arm), 5) drilling errors (instability, slipping), 6) electrode deviations affected by surgical technique (use of stylet or not), structural and biomechanical properties of soft tissue (heterogeneity, angle when crossing tissue interfaces), mechanical properties of electrodes, and 7) post-implantation physiological response (Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak, tissue swelling). We focus on accuracy metrics commonly reported in the literature to validate our approach against metrics computed manually including entry point (EP) and target point (TP) localisation errors and angle differences between planned and implanted trajectories in 15 patients with a total of 158 stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) electrodes. Our work is relevant and timely to facilitate comparisons of studies reporting implantation accuracy

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.