Analysis of Stereotactic Accuracy in Patients Undergoing Deep Brain Stimulation Using Nexframe and the Leksell Frame

Maarten Bot, Pepijn van den Munckhof, Roy Bakay, Diane Sierens, Glenn Stebbins, Leo Verhagen Metman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

50 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

To determine and compare the accuracy of Nexframe and the Leksell stereotactic frame in deep brain stimulation (DBS) procedures. The 'frameless' Nexframe uses bone fiducials rather than a head-mounted frame, which offers potential benefits for both the patient and the surgical team. Accuracy of lead implantation and factors affecting this accuracy are of crucial importance but have not been extensively studied for the frameless system. The location of 194 (Leksell frame, n = 116; Nexframe, n = 78) DBS leads was determined on postoperative MRI. Obtained stereotactic coordinates were compared with expected intraoperative target coordinates. Resulting absolute errors in the X (medial-lateral), Y (anterior-posterior), and Z (dorsal-ventral) coordinates (x0394;X, x0394;Y, and x0394;Z) were then used to calculate the vector error (VE). The vector error describes the total error in 3-D space and represents our main outcome measure. The vector error (mean ± SD) was 2.8 ± 1.3 for Nexframe and 2.5 ± 1.2 for the Leksell frame (p = 0.43). For Nexframe, absolute X, Y, and Z errors were 1.4 ± 1.3, 1.7 ± 1.2, and 1.0 ± 0.9 mm. For the Leksell frame, the absolute X, Y, and Z errors were 1.4 ± 1.0, 1.2 ± 1.0, and 1.3 ± 0.9 mm. On the anterior-posterior plane (Y coordinate), the Leksell frame was more accurate than Nexframe (p = 0.04). In contrast, Nexframe was more accurate on the dorsal-ventral plane (Z coordinate) (p = 0.04). There was no difference in accuracy between the two methods on the medial-lateral plane (X coordinate). This comparison of Nexframe and the Leksell frame shows that both techniques have equivalent overall 3-D accuracy
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)316-325
JournalStereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery
Volume93
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Cite this