ArticleWorld neurosurgery: X2019
The Effect of Vascular Segmentation Methods on Stereotactic Trajectory Planning for Drug-Resistant Focal Epilepsy: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in World neurosurgery: X, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Value of SINO Robot and Angio Render Technology for Stereoelectroencephalography Electrode Implantation in Drug-Resistant Epilepsy.Journal of neurological surgery. Part A, Central European neurosurgery · 2025Article
- Computer-assisted stereoelectroencephalography planning: center-specific priors enhance planning.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Automation Advances in Stereoelectroencephalography Planning.Neurosurgery clinics of North America · 2020Review
- Refining Planning for Stereoelectroencephalography: A Prospective Validation of Spatial Priors for Computer-Assisted Planning With Application of Dynamic Learning.Frontiers in neurology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStereotactic neurosurgical procedures carry a risk of intracranial hemorrhage, which may result in significant morbidity and mortality. Vascular imaging is crucial for planning stereotactic procedures to prevent conflicts with intracranial vasculature. There is a wide range of vascular imaging methods used for stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) trajectory planning. Computer-assisted planning (CAP) improves planning time and trajectory metrics. We aimed to quantify the effect of different vascular imaging protocols on CAP trajectories for SEEG.
methodsTen patients who had undergone SEEG (95 electrodes) following preoperative acquisition of gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MR + Gad), magnetic resonance angiography and magnetic resonance angiography (MRV + MRA), and digital subtraction catheter angiography (DSA) were identified from a prospectively maintained database. SEEG implantations were planned using CAP using DSA segmentations as the gold standard. Strategies were then recreated using MRV + MRA and MR + Gad to define the "apparent" and "true" risk scores associated with each modality. Vessels of varying diameter were then iteratively removed from the DSA segmentation to identify the size at which all 3 vascular modalities returned the same safety metrics.
resultsCAP performed using DSA vessel segmentations resulted in significantly lower "true" risk scores and greater minimum distances from vasculature compared with the "true" risk associated with MR + Gad and MRV + MRA. MRV + MRA and MR + Gad returned similar risk scores to DSA when vessels <2 mm and <4 mm were not considered, respectively.
conclusionsSignificant variability in vascular imaging and trajectory planning practices exist for SEEG. CAP performed with MR + Gad or MRV + MRA alone returns "falsely" lower risk scores compared with DSA. It is unclear whether DSA is oversensitive and thus restricting potential trajectories.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.