King's College London

Research portal

Computer-Assisted Versus Manual Planning for Stereotactic Brain Biopsy: A Retrospective Comparative Pilot Study

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

Computer-Assisted Versus Manual Planning for Stereotactic Brain Biopsy : A Retrospective Comparative Pilot Study. / Marcus, Hani J.; Vakharia, Vejay N.; Sparks, Rachel; Rodionov, Roman; Kitchen, Neil; McEvoy, Andrew W.; Miserocchi, Anna; Thorne, Lewis; Ourselin, Sebastien; Duncan, John S.

In: Operative neurosurgery (Hagerstown, Md.), Vol. 18, No. 4, 01.04.2020, p. 417-422.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Marcus, HJ, Vakharia, VN, Sparks, R, Rodionov, R, Kitchen, N, McEvoy, AW, Miserocchi, A, Thorne, L, Ourselin, S & Duncan, JS 2020, 'Computer-Assisted Versus Manual Planning for Stereotactic Brain Biopsy: A Retrospective Comparative Pilot Study', Operative neurosurgery (Hagerstown, Md.), vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 417-422. https://doi.org/10.1093/ons/opz177

APA

Marcus, H. J., Vakharia, V. N., Sparks, R., Rodionov, R., Kitchen, N., McEvoy, A. W., ... Duncan, J. S. (2020). Computer-Assisted Versus Manual Planning for Stereotactic Brain Biopsy: A Retrospective Comparative Pilot Study. Operative neurosurgery (Hagerstown, Md.), 18(4), 417-422. https://doi.org/10.1093/ons/opz177

Vancouver

Marcus HJ, Vakharia VN, Sparks R, Rodionov R, Kitchen N, McEvoy AW et al. Computer-Assisted Versus Manual Planning for Stereotactic Brain Biopsy: A Retrospective Comparative Pilot Study. Operative neurosurgery (Hagerstown, Md.). 2020 Apr 1;18(4):417-422. https://doi.org/10.1093/ons/opz177

Author

Marcus, Hani J. ; Vakharia, Vejay N. ; Sparks, Rachel ; Rodionov, Roman ; Kitchen, Neil ; McEvoy, Andrew W. ; Miserocchi, Anna ; Thorne, Lewis ; Ourselin, Sebastien ; Duncan, John S. / Computer-Assisted Versus Manual Planning for Stereotactic Brain Biopsy : A Retrospective Comparative Pilot Study. In: Operative neurosurgery (Hagerstown, Md.). 2020 ; Vol. 18, No. 4. pp. 417-422.

Bibtex Download

@article{e8d901fc3bc2430e8121552bb05ea99b,
title = "Computer-Assisted Versus Manual Planning for Stereotactic Brain Biopsy: A Retrospective Comparative Pilot Study",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Stereotactic brain biopsy is among the most common neurosurgical procedures. Planning an optimally safe surgical trajectory requires careful attention to a number of features including the following: (1) traversing the skull perpendicularly; (2) minimizing trajectory length; and (3) avoiding critical neurovascular structures. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a platform, SurgiNav, for automated trajectory planning in stereotactic brain biopsy. METHODS: A prospectively maintained database was searched between February and August 2017 to identify all adult patients who underwent stereotactic brain biopsy and for whom postoperative imaging was available. In each case, the standard preoperative, T1-weighted, gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging was used to generate a model of the cortex. A surgical trajectory was then generated using computer-assisted planning (CAP) , and metrics of the trajectory were compared to the trajectory of the previously implemented manual plan (MP). RESULTS: Fifteen consecutive patients were identified. Feasible trajectories were generated using CAP in all patients, and the mean angle determined using CAP was more perpendicular to the skull than using MP (10.0° vs 14.6° from orthogonal; P = .07), the mean trajectory length was shorter (38.5 vs 43.5 mm; P = .01), and the risk score was lower (0.27 vs 0.52; P = .03). CONCLUSION: CAP for stereotactic brain biopsy appears feasible and may be safer in selected cases.",
keywords = "Automated, Biopsy, Computer-assisted surgery, Surgery",
author = "Marcus, {Hani J.} and Vakharia, {Vejay N.} and Rachel Sparks and Roman Rodionov and Neil Kitchen and McEvoy, {Andrew W.} and Anna Miserocchi and Lewis Thorne and Sebastien Ourselin and Duncan, {John S.}",
year = "2020",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/ons/opz177",
language = "English",
volume = "18",
pages = "417--422",
journal = "Operative neurosurgery (Hagerstown, Md.)",
issn = "2332-4260",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "4",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - Computer-Assisted Versus Manual Planning for Stereotactic Brain Biopsy

T2 - A Retrospective Comparative Pilot Study

AU - Marcus, Hani J.

AU - Vakharia, Vejay N.

AU - Sparks, Rachel

AU - Rodionov, Roman

AU - Kitchen, Neil

AU - McEvoy, Andrew W.

AU - Miserocchi, Anna

AU - Thorne, Lewis

AU - Ourselin, Sebastien

AU - Duncan, John S.

PY - 2020/4/1

Y1 - 2020/4/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: Stereotactic brain biopsy is among the most common neurosurgical procedures. Planning an optimally safe surgical trajectory requires careful attention to a number of features including the following: (1) traversing the skull perpendicularly; (2) minimizing trajectory length; and (3) avoiding critical neurovascular structures. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a platform, SurgiNav, for automated trajectory planning in stereotactic brain biopsy. METHODS: A prospectively maintained database was searched between February and August 2017 to identify all adult patients who underwent stereotactic brain biopsy and for whom postoperative imaging was available. In each case, the standard preoperative, T1-weighted, gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging was used to generate a model of the cortex. A surgical trajectory was then generated using computer-assisted planning (CAP) , and metrics of the trajectory were compared to the trajectory of the previously implemented manual plan (MP). RESULTS: Fifteen consecutive patients were identified. Feasible trajectories were generated using CAP in all patients, and the mean angle determined using CAP was more perpendicular to the skull than using MP (10.0° vs 14.6° from orthogonal; P = .07), the mean trajectory length was shorter (38.5 vs 43.5 mm; P = .01), and the risk score was lower (0.27 vs 0.52; P = .03). CONCLUSION: CAP for stereotactic brain biopsy appears feasible and may be safer in selected cases.

AB - BACKGROUND: Stereotactic brain biopsy is among the most common neurosurgical procedures. Planning an optimally safe surgical trajectory requires careful attention to a number of features including the following: (1) traversing the skull perpendicularly; (2) minimizing trajectory length; and (3) avoiding critical neurovascular structures. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a platform, SurgiNav, for automated trajectory planning in stereotactic brain biopsy. METHODS: A prospectively maintained database was searched between February and August 2017 to identify all adult patients who underwent stereotactic brain biopsy and for whom postoperative imaging was available. In each case, the standard preoperative, T1-weighted, gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging was used to generate a model of the cortex. A surgical trajectory was then generated using computer-assisted planning (CAP) , and metrics of the trajectory were compared to the trajectory of the previously implemented manual plan (MP). RESULTS: Fifteen consecutive patients were identified. Feasible trajectories were generated using CAP in all patients, and the mean angle determined using CAP was more perpendicular to the skull than using MP (10.0° vs 14.6° from orthogonal; P = .07), the mean trajectory length was shorter (38.5 vs 43.5 mm; P = .01), and the risk score was lower (0.27 vs 0.52; P = .03). CONCLUSION: CAP for stereotactic brain biopsy appears feasible and may be safer in selected cases.

KW - Automated

KW - Biopsy

KW - Computer-assisted surgery

KW - Surgery

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85078189646&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/ons/opz177

DO - 10.1093/ons/opz177

M3 - Article

C2 - 31381800

AN - SCOPUS:85078189646

VL - 18

SP - 417

EP - 422

JO - Operative neurosurgery (Hagerstown, Md.)

JF - Operative neurosurgery (Hagerstown, Md.)

SN - 2332-4260

IS - 4

ER -

View graph of relations

© 2018 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454