Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31650126›Full record

ArticleWorld neurosurgery: X2019

The Effect of Vascular Segmentation Methods on Stereotactic Trajectory Planning for Drug-Resistant Focal Epilepsy: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Vejay N Vakharia, Rachel Sparks, Sjoerd B Vos, Andrew W McEvoy, Anna Miserocchi, Sebastien Ourselin, John S Duncan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Automation Advances in Stereoelectroencephalography Planning.Neurosurgery clinics of North America · 2020
    Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Vejay N VakhariaDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Epilepsy, UCL Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Rachel SparksSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, St Thomas' Hospital, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Sjoerd B VosDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Epilepsy, UCL Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Andrew W McEvoyDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Epilepsy, UCL Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Anna MiserocchiDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Epilepsy, UCL Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Sebastien OurselinSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, St Thomas' Hospital, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
John S DuncanDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Epilepsy, UCL Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

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

CAP, Computer-assisted planningComputer-assisted planningDSA, Digital subtraction catheter angiographyEpilepsyEpiNavGIF, Geodesic information flowsGM, Gray matterMD, Minimum distanceMPRAGE, Magnetization prepared-rapid gradient echoMRA, Magnetic resonance angiographyMR + Gad, Gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imagingMRV, Magnetic resonance venographyROI, Region of interestRS, Risk scoreSEEG, StereoelectroencephalographyStereoelectroencephalographyVascular segmentation

Identifiers

PMID31650126
PMCPMC6804655

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.