ArticleSurgical neurology international2025
Factors affecting targeting accuracy in minimally invasive twist drill deep brain stimulation.
Article in Surgical neurology international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A neutrosophic explainable AI framework for modeling uncertainty in immersive stereotactic neurosurgical simulation.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The efficacy of deep brain stimulation (DBS) relies on accurate stereotactic electrode placement. Post-implantation imaging enables assessment of electrode positioning and quantification of targeting accuracy. While DBS is typically performed through burr hole, this study examines targeting accuracy factors using a minimally invasive twist drill technique. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 86 patients (171 electrodes) who underwent DBS at our institution. Different measures of targeting error were defined and compared. Analysis focused on trajectory error (TE), the closest perpendicular distance between the electrode's center and target locus. Seventeen demographic, clinical, and procedural variables were assessed for potential impact on accuracy. Multivariate mixed effects models were applied to identify significant associations. Results: Mean (±standard deviation) TE was 1.4 (0.7) mm. Electrodes tended to lie medial (0.3 ± 0.1 mm; mean ± 95% confidence interval), posterior (0.6 ± 0.1 mm), and superior (0.5 ± 0.1 mm) to targets. Three variables were independently and significantly associated with greater TE: use of one of two stereotactic frames (effect size 0.4 ± 0.2 mm), second-side implantation in bilateral surgery (0.3 ± 0.2 mm), and decreasing coronal approach angle (0.04 ± 0.03 mm/°). All three factors were associated with significantly more posterior implantation, while second-side and decreasing coronal angle also yielded a more superiorly located point of closest approach of the electrode. Conclusion: We present a thorough multivariate analysis of targeting accuracy in DBS, identifying significant factors associated with accuracy within our workflow. We suggest that such targeting error analysis should be performed routinely by neurosurgeons undertaking DBS to audit targeting accuracy and identify error sources within their workflows.
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.