The application accuracy of a skull-mounted trajectory guide system for image-guided functional neurosurgery

Objective: Frameless image guided systems have traditionally been perceived as being less accurate than stereotactic frames, limiting their adoption for trajectory-based procedures such as deep brain stimulator placement which require submillimetric accuracy. However, some studies have suggested that high degrees of accuracy are attainable with optical localization systems. We evaluated the application accuracy of a skull-mounted trajectory guide coupled to an optical image-guided surgery system in a laboratory setting. Materials and Methods: A plastic skull phantom was fitted with five fiducial markers rigidly attached via self-drilling bone screws. Varying MRI and CT imaging protocols were obtained at 25 different centers. A metal disc marked in 1-mm increments was placed at the expected target point. Following registration and alignment of the trajectory guide, radial and depth localization errors were measured. A total of 560 measurements were obtained and detailed statistical analyses were performed. Results: Mean localization error was 1.25 mm with a 95% confidence interval of 2.7 mm and a 99.9% confidence interval of 4.0 mm. These values were significantly lower than those published for the two most widely used frame systems (p<0.001). Conclusions: Accuracy of image-guided localization using a rigid trajectory guide can meet or exceed that achievable with a stereotactic frame.

[1]  E. Spiegel,et al.  Stereotaxic Apparatus for Operations on the Human Brain. , 1947, Science.

[2]  E. A. Spiegel,et al.  Stereotaxic Apparatus for Operations on the Human Brain , 1975 .

[3]  L. Lemieux,et al.  Accuracy in frame-based and frameless stereotaxy. , 1993, Stereotactic and functional neurosurgery.

[4]  R. Maciunas,et al.  The application accuracy of stereotactic frames. , 1994, Neurosurgery.

[5]  L. Smith,et al.  Clinical use of a frameless stereotactic arm: results of 325 cases. , 1995, Journal of neurosurgery.

[6]  S J Zinreich,et al.  In vivo accuracy testing and clinical experience with the ISG Viewing Wand. , 1996, Neurosurgery.

[7]  P. Helm,et al.  Accuracy of registration methods in frameless stereotaxis. , 1998, Computer aided surgery : official journal of the International Society for Computer Aided Surgery.

[8]  I. Germano,et al.  Clinical experience with intracranial brain needle biopsy using frameless surgical navigation. , 1998, Computer aided surgery : official journal of the International Society for Computer Aided Surgery.

[9]  D. Thomas,et al.  Accuracy of true frameless stereotaxy: in vivo measurement and laboratory phantom studies. Technical note. , 1999, Journal of neurosurgery.

[10]  I. Germano,et al.  Clinical use of the optical digitizer for intracranial neuronavigation. , 1999, Neurosurgery.

[11]  R Steinmeier,et al.  Factors Influencing the Application Accuracy of Neuronavigation Systems , 2002, Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery.

[12]  M. Stechison.  A digitized biopsy needle for frameless stereotactic biopsies with the StealthStation. , 2000, Neurosurgery.

[13]  E. Benardete,et al.  Comparison of Frameless Stereotactic Systems: Accuracy, Precision, and Applications , 2001, Neurosurgery.

[14]  The Role of Computer-Assisted Image-Guided Techniques , 2001 .

[15]  N. Dorward,et al.  Clinical Validation of True Frameless Stereotactic Biopsy: Analysis of the First 125 Consecutive Cases , 2001, Neurosurgery.

[16]  R. Maciunas,et al.  Effect of Changing Patient Position from Supine to Prone on the Accuracy of a Brown-Roberts-Wells Stereotactic Head Frame System , 2003, Neurosurgery.

[17]  Jaimie M. Henderson,et al.  Frameless Localization for Functional Neurosurgical Procedures: A Preliminary Accuracy Study , 2004, Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery.