• DOI:10.3171/2015.6.JNS15487
• Corpus ID: 21514177

Comparison of computer-assisted planning and manual planning for depth electrode implantations in epilepsy.

@article{Nowell2016ComparisonOC,
  title={Comparison of computer-assisted planning and manual planning for depth electrode implantations in epilepsy.},
  author={Mark Nowell and Rachel Sparks and Gergely Zombori and Anna Miserocchi and Roman Rodionov and Beate Diehl and Tim Wehner and Gianluca Baio and Gianluca Trevisi and Martin M. Tisdall and S{\'e}bastien Ourselin and Andrew W. McEvoy and John S. Duncan},
  journal={Journal of neurosurgery},
  year={2016},
  volume={124 6},
  pages={
          1820-8
        }
}

• M. Nowell, R. Sparks, +10 authors J. Duncan
• Published 1 June 2016
• Medicine
• Journal of neurosurgery

OBJECT The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical utility of multitrajectory computer-assisted planning software (CAP) to plan stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) electrode arrangements. METHODS A cohort of 18 patients underwent SEEG for evaluation of epilepsy at a single center between August 2013 and August 2014. Planning of electrodes was performed manually and stored using EpiNav software. CAP was developed as a planning tool in EpiNav. The user preselects a set of cerebral targets and optimized trajectory constraints, and then runs an automated search of potential scalp entry points and associated trajectories. Each trajectory is associated with metrics for a safety profile, derived from the minimal distance to vascular structures, and an efficacy profile, derived from the proportion of depth electrodes that are within or adjacent to gray matter. CAP was applied to the cerebral targets used in the cohort of 18 previous manually planned implantations to generate new multitrajectory implantation plans. A comparison was then undertaken for trajectory safety and efficacy. RESULTS CAP was applied to 166 electrode targets in 18 patients. There were significant improvements in both the safety profile and efficacy profile of trajectories generated by CAP compared with manual planning (p < 0.05). Three independent neurosurgeons assessed the feasibility of the trajectories generated by CAP, with 131 (78.9%) of 166 trajectories deemed suitable for implementation in clinical practice. CAP was performed in real time, with a median duration of 8 minutes for each patient, although this does not include the time taken for data preparation. CONCLUSIONS CAP is a promising tool to plan SEEG implantations. CAP provides feasible depth electrode arrangements, with quantitatively greater safety and efficacy profiles, and with a substantial reduction in duration of planning within the 3D multimodality framework.