Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35927449›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Comparison between MR and CT imaging used to correct for skull-induced phase aberrations during transcranial focused ultrasound.

Steven A Leung, David Moore, Yekaterina Gilbo, John Snell, Taylor D Webb, Craig H Meyer, G Wilson Miller, Pejman Ghanouni, Kim Butts Pauly

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. SCOUT: Skull-Corrected Optimization for Ultrasound Transducers.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

9 authors.

Steven A LeungDepartment of Bioengineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. stevenleung@stanford.edu.
David MooreFocused Ultrasound Foundation, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Yekaterina GilboDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
John SnellFocused Ultrasound Foundation, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Taylor D WebbDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Craig H MeyerDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
G Wilson MillerDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Pejman GhanouniDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Kim Butts PaulyDepartment of Bioengineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.

Funding

Comprehensive MRI Guidance of Focused Ultrasound NeurosurgeryR01EB028773 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA · PI MEYER, CRAIG H · 2020 to 2023
$2.1M
MR-guided Focused Ultrasound Neuromodulation of Deep Brain StructuresR01MH111825 · NIMH · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI BUTTS-PAULY, KIM · 2016 to 2019
$1.6M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB028773NIH HHS R01 MH111825
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transcranial focused ultrasound with the InSightec Exablate system uses thermal ablation for the treatment of movement and mood disorders and blood brain barrier disruption for tumor therapy. The system uses computed tomography (CT) images to calculate phase corrections that account for aberrations caused by the human skull. This work investigates whether magnetic resonance (MR) images can be used as an alternative to CT images to calculate phase corrections. Phase corrections were calculated using the gold standard hydrophone method and the standard of care InSightec ray tracing method. MR binary image mask, MR-simulated-CT (MRsimCT), and CT images of three ex vivo human skulls were supplied as inputs to the InSightec ray tracing method. The degassed ex vivo human skulls were sonicated with a 670 kHz hemispherical phased array transducer (InSightec Exablate 4000). 3D raster scans of the beam profiles were acquired using a hydrophone mounted on a 3-axis positioner system. Focal spots were evaluated using six metrics: pressure at the target, peak pressure, intensity at the target, peak intensity, positioning error, and focal spot volume. Targets at the geometric focus and 5 mm lateral to the geometric focus were investigated. There was no statistical difference between any of the metrics at either target using either MRsimCT or CT for phase aberration correction. As opposed to the MRsimCT, the use of CT images for aberration correction requires registration to the treatment day MR images; CT misregistration within a range of ± 2 degrees of rotation error along three dimensions was shown to reduce focal spot intensity by up to 9.4%. MRsimCT images used for phase aberration correction for the skull produce similar results as CT-based correction, while avoiding both CT to MR registration errors and unnecessary patient exposure to ionizing radiation.

Indexed as

SkullTomography, X-Ray ComputedHeadHumansMagnetic Resonance Imaging

Identifiers

PMID35927449
PMCPMC9352781

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.