Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery最新文献

Introduction: Neuromodulation using deep brain stimulation (DBS), spinal cord stimulation (SCS), and peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) to treat neurological, psychiatric, and pain disorders is a rapidly growing field. Infections related to the implanted hardware are among the most common complications and result in health-related and economic burden. Unfortunately, conservative medical therapy is less likely to be successful. In this retrospective study, we aimed to identify characteristics of the infections and investigated surgical and antimicrobial treatments.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed of patients with an infection related to DBS, SCS, and/or PNFS hardware over an 8-year period at our institution. Data were analyzed for type of neurostimulator, time of onset of infection following the neurosurgical procedure, location, and surgical treatment strategy. Surgical treatment of infections consisted of either a surgical wound revision without hardware removal or a surgical wound revision with partial or complete hardware removal. Data were further analyzed for the microorganisms involved, antimicrobial treatment and its duration, and clinical outcome.

Results: Over an 8-year period, a total of 1,250 DBS, 1,835 SCS, and 731 PNFS surgeries were performed including de novo system implantations, implanted pulse generator (IPG) replacements, and revisions. We identified 82 patients with infections related to the neurostimulator hardware, representing an incidence of 3.09% of the procedures. Seventy-one percent of the patients had undergone multiple surgeries related to the neurostimulator prior to the infection. The infections occurred after a mean of 12.2 months after the initial surgery. The site of infection was most commonly around the IPG, especially in DBS and SCS. The majority (62.2%) was treated by surgical wound revision with simultaneous partial or complete removal of hardware. Microbiological specimens predominantly yielded Staphylococcus epidermidis (39.0%) and Staphylococcus aureus (35.4%). After surgery, antimicrobials were given for a mean of 3.4 weeks. The antimicrobial regime was significantly shorter in patients with hardware removal in comparison to those who only had undergone surgical wound revision. One intracranial abscess occurred. No cases of infection-related death, sepsis, bacteremia, or intraspinal abscesses were found.

Conclusion: Our data did show the predominance of S. epidermidis and S. aureus as etiologic organisms in hardware-related infections. Infections associated with S. aureus most likely required (partial) hardware removal. Aggressive surgical treatment including hardware removal shortens the duration of antimicrobial treatment. Clear strategies should be developed to treat hardware-related infections to optimize patient management and reduce health- and economic-related burden.

None.

Introduction: It is a normal procedure to avoid the application of ionizing radiation during pregnancy. In very rare occasions, treatment can be performed, but doses to the fetus must be evaluated and reported, and the patient must sign informed consent. There can occur two types of damage caused by ionizing radiation - deterministic and stochastic effects. Deterministic effects may occur after reaching a certain threshold (100 mGy for this study); meanwhile, stochastic effects have no limit and their probability rises with dose. This study focuses on deterministic effects.

Case presentations: This study compares the dose measured on phantom for the area of the pelvis and the dose measured on 3 patients with dosimeters positioned on the pelvis irradiated on Leksell Gamma Knife Perfexion/Icon. The mean dose for measurement on phantom for the pelvis was 0.73 ± 0.76 mGy, and for the patients, it was 1.28 mGy, 0.493 mGy, and 0.549 mGy which is 80 times lower, 200 times lower, and 180 times lower than the threshold for deterministic effects, respectively.

Conclusion: The measurement carried on phantom served as the base for drafting informed consent and provided initial proof that treatment can be safely delivered. Measurements performed on patients only confirmed that irradiation of pregnant patients on Leksell Gamma Knife Perfexion/Icon is safe relative to the deterministic effects. Nevertheless, pregnant patients should be treated with ionizing radiation only in very extraordinary situations.

Introduction: Despite the known benefits of deep brain stimulation (DBS), the cost of the procedure can limit access and can vary widely. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review of the reported costs associated with DBS, as well as the variability in reporting cost-associated factors to ultimately increase patient access to this therapy.

Methods: A systematic review of the literature for cost of DBS treatment was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed and Embase databases were queried. Olsen & Associates (OANDA) was used to convert all reported rates to USD. Cost was corrected for inflation using the US Bureau of Labor Statistics Inflation Calculator, correcting to April 2022.

Results: Twenty-six articles on the cost of DBS surgery from 2001 to 2021 were included. The median number of patients across studies was 193, the mean reported age was 60.5 ± 5.6 years, and median female prevalence was 38.9%. The inflation- and currency-adjusted mean cost of the DBS device was USD 21,496.07 ± USD 8,944.16, the cost of surgery alone was USD 14,685.22 ± USD 8,479.66, the total cost of surgery was USD 40,942.85 ± USD 17,987.43, and the total cost of treatment until 1 year of follow-up was USD 47,632.27 ± USD 23,067.08. There were no differences in costs observed across surgical indication or country.

Conclusion: Our report describes the large variation in DBS costs and the manner of reporting costs. The current lack of standardization impedes productive discourse as comparisons are hindered by both geographic and chronological variations. Emphasis should be put on standardized reporting and analysis of reimbursement costs to better assess the variability of DBS-associated costs in order to make this procedure more cost-effective and address areas for improvement to increase patient access to DBS.

Introduction: DBS efficacy depends on accuracy. CT-MRI fusion is established for both stereotactic registration and electrode placement verification. The desire to streamline DBS workflows, reduce operative time, and minimize patient transfers has increased interest in portable imaging modalities such as the Medtronic O-arm® and mobile CT. However, these remain expensive and bulky. 3D C-arm fluoroscopy (3DXT) units are a smaller and less costly alternative, albeit incompatible with traditional frame-based localization and without useful soft tissue resolution. We aimed to compare fusion of 3DXT and CT with pre-operative MRI to evaluate if 3DXT-MRI fusion alone is sufficient for accurate registration and reliable targeting verification. We further assess DBS targeting accuracy using a 3DXT workflow and compare radiation dosimetry between modalities.

Methods: Patients underwent robot-assisted DBS implantation using a workflow incorporating 3DXT which we describe. Two intra-operative 3DXT spins were performed for registration and accuracy verification followed by conventional CT post-operatively. Post-operative 3DXT and CT images were independently fused to the same pre-operative MRI sequence and co-ordinates generated for comparison. Registration accuracy was compared to 15 consecutive controls who underwent CT-based registration. Radial targeting accuracy was calculated and radiation dosimetry recorded.

Results: Data were obtained from 29 leads in 15 consecutive patients. 3DXT registration accuracy was significantly superior to CT with mean error 0.22 ± 0.03 mm (p < 0.0001). Mean Euclidean electrode tip position variation for CT to MRI versus 3DXT to MRI fusion was 0.62 ± 0.40 mm (range 0.0 mm-1.7 mm). In comparison, direct CT to 3DXT fusion showed electrode tip Euclidean variance of 0.23 ± 0.09 mm. Mean radial targeting accuracy assessed on 3DXT was 0.97 ± 0.54 mm versus 1.15 ± 0.55 mm on CT with differences insignificant (p = 0.30). Mean patient radiation doses were around 80% lower with 3DXT versus CT (p < 0.0001).

Discussion: Mobile 3D C-arm fluoroscopy can be safely incorporated into DBS workflows for both registration and lead verification. For registration, the limited field of view requires the use of frameless transient fiducials and is highly accurate. For lead position verification based on MRI co-registration, we estimate there is around a 0.4 mm discrepancy between lead position seen on 3DXT versus CT when corrected for brain shift. This is similar to that described in O-arm® or mobile CT series. For units where logistical or financial considerations preclude the acquisition of a cone beam CT or mobile CT scanner, our data support portable 3D C-arm fluoroscopy as an acceptable alternative with significantly lower radiation exposure.

None.

Background: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a highly efficient, evidence-based therapy to alleviate symptoms and improve quality of life in movement disorders such as Parkinson's disease, essential tremor, and dystonia, which is also being applied in several psychiatric disorders, such as obsessive-compulsive disorder and depression, when they are otherwise resistant to therapy.

Summary: At present, DBS is clinically applied in the so-called open-loop approach, with fixed stimulation parameters, irrespective of the patients' clinical state(s). This approach ignores the brain states or feedback from the central nervous system or peripheral recordings, thus potentially limiting its efficacy and inducing side effects by stimulation of the targeted networks below or above the therapeutic level.

Key messages: The currently emerging closed-loop (CL) approaches are designed to adapt stimulation parameters to the electrophysiological surrogates of disease symptoms and states. CL-DBS paves the way for adaptive personalized DBS protocols. This review elaborates on the perspectives of the CL technology and discusses its opportunities as well as its potential pitfalls for both clinical and research use in neuropsychiatric disorders.