Chang, Jin Woo

Background Psychiatric disorders are increasingly contributing to global disability. Despite advances in conservative management, the prevalence of treatment-resistant cases remains high. Meanwhile, neurosurgery for psychiatric disorders (NPD) remains underused, largely due to strict regulations and historical concerns, particularly those related to neuropsychological side effects (NPSE). Objective To address this issue, we conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis to compare NPSE associated with radiofrequency ablative NPD to those observed in neuro-oncological, neurovascular and epilepsy surgeries. Methods PubMed, Embase and LILACS databases were searched in April 2024 for articles published in English/Spanish from 1990 to 2022, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Results A total of 48 articles with 2678 participants were included. The frequency of transient and permanent NPSE in the NPD group ranged from 0.94% to 11.50% and 0.94% to 2.03%, respectively, comparable to the other surgical groups (epilepsy: 0.31–11.70%; vascular: 0.52–22.90%; oncology: 0.94–17.60% for transient NPSE; epilepsy: 0.31–12%; vascular: 0.40–1.96% and oncology: 0.84–1.48% for permanent NPSE). Regarding permanent NPSE, arguably the most critical consideration, the NPD group showed better outcomes in memory, language and social cognition than the epilepsy group, but worse outcomes in executive and perceptual-motor functions. Compared with the vascular group, the NPD group had better executive function but worse complex attention. Finally, the NPD group had fewer permanent deficits than the oncology group in executive function, complex attention and perceptual-motor domains, although language performance was lower. Conclusions Contemporary NPD apparently carries a similar risk of NPSE as other conventional neurosurgical procedures, challenging misconceptions and this unjustified barrier to its broader use.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A typical workflow for deep brain stimulation (DBS) surgery consists of head frame placement, followed by stereotactic computed tomography (CT) or MRI before surgical implantation of the hardware. At some institutions, this workflow is prolonged when the imaging scanner is located far away from the operating room, thereby increasing workflow times by the addition of transport times. Recently, the intraoperative O-arm has been shown to provide accurate image fusion with preoperative CT or MR imaging, suggesting the possibility of obtaining an intraoperative localization scan and postoperative confirmation. In this article, we aim to evaluate the compatibility of the stereotactic frame system with the intraoperative O-arm system regarding lead accuracy and surgical flow. METHODS: A total of 17 patients undergoing DBS surgery for movement disorders were evaluated. One patient underwent both the stereotactic CT and O-arm localization, while 16 patients underwent only intraoperative O-arm localization. Following lead placement, intraoperative O-arm imaging was obtained to evaluate the accuracy of the lead placement. Accuracy was defined as the error measured as the distance from the center of the planned trajectory to the cannula. RESULTS: Less than 0.1 mm difference was found between the O-arm imaging technique and CT image localization of the NaviNetics stereotactic head frame in DBS surgery. Of the 16 patients who underwent the intraoperative O-arm imaging alone, the targets included bilateral ventral intermediate nucleus (16 leads), bilateral globus pallidus internus (4 leads), and subthalamic nucleus (12 leads). The mean ± SD radial error in the probe's eye view was 0.71 ± 0.33 mm for n = 32 leads. No tract hemorrhage was observed. CONCLUSION: Intraoperative O-arm imaging can be used safely and effectively for stereotactic registration and lead placement confirmation with the stereotactic system in both awake and asleep DBS surgery.