Lee, Kendall H.

Abstract Objective. Modern stereotactic neurosurgery increasingly relies on bilateral and multi-trajectory workflows (e.g. deep brain stimulation (DBS), stereoelectroencephalography (sEEG)), which can exceed the reach and flexibility of conventional frame-based systems. Building on our skull-mounted Navinetics D1 platform, we present a stereotactic frame (Navinetics E1) intended to expand the reachable work envelope, enable independent bilateral targeting, and preserve mechanical accuracy and patient comfort. Approach. We designed the Navinetics E1 stereotactic frame using a center-of-arc architecture with five degrees of freedom per hemisphere ( X, Y, Z , Arc, Collar) and two operating modes: Double Arm (independent left/right arms for simultaneous bilateral targeting) and Single Arm (mechanically coupled arms). The system was designed in CAD and fabricated via carbon fiber-reinforced polylactic acid (PLA-CF) additive manufacturing. Collision-aware MATLAB simulations quantified work volume and admissible approach directions. Mechanical targeting accuracy was evaluated on a ground truth fixture (GTF) platform, with mixed-effects modeling to assess target- and trajectory-dependent effects. Operative feasibility was assessed through an intraoperative entry-point replication test relative to the D1 system. Main results. Compared to the D1, the E1 frame significantly expanded key geometric ranges, including, most notably, 0°–360° Collar rotation and posterior Y -axis reach, thereby increasing the work volume and trajectory range by factors of 3.39 and 8.42, respectively. Mean GTF targeting deviation was 0.78 ± 0.38 mm in Single Arm mode and 1.23 ± 0.36 mm (right) and 1.65 ± 0.47 mm (left) in Double Arm mode. Entry-point replication across 17 clinical cases achieved 76.5% success in overlapping the reference points, providing preliminary evidence of feasibility under real operative conditions. Significance. The E1 frame extends a compact skull-mounted platform to support broader stereotactic reach and trajectory while enabling independent bilateral workflows. These features may reduce intraoperative reconfiguration for complex DBS and sEEG cases. Future work will focus on increasing structural stiffness, improving angular readout/setting, and developing MRI-compatible implementations.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: External ventricular drain (EVD) placement is the most commonly performed bedside emergent neurosurgical procedure. However, catheter misplacement occurs in approximately 25% of cases, potentially resulting in neurological injury or the need for repositioning, highlighting the need for safer and more accurate placement techniques. This review aims to (1) summarize technological innovations developed to enhance the accuracy and safety of bedside EVD placement, (2) evaluate their reported benefits and limitations, and (3) identify key barriers to their clinical implementation in critical care settings. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus combining terms related to EVD placement and assistive technologies. All the studies evaluated EVD placement using simulations, phantoms, cadavers, and patient procedures conducted at the bedside and in the operating room. RESULTS: We identified 3898 records, and 76 studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 30 studies compared stereotactic systems, ultrasound guidance, frameless neuronavigation, and augmented or mixed reality technologies to the freehand technique. These studies consistently reported improved accuracy with advanced systems although complication rates and procedural times were variably reported. An additional 35 and 12 studies evaluated nonimmersive and immersive technologies, respectively, in noncomparative settings. Most of these demonstrated high first-pass success and mean tip deviations under 3 mm. Variability in the definitions of accuracy and procedural metrics limited data synthesis, but the overall findings suggest a promising trajectory for technology-assisted EVD placement. CONCLUSION: Assistive technologies for EVD placement show potential to improve accuracy and safety over the freehand technique. These early successes signal potential to improve bedside neurosurgical care. Realizing this promise will require future studies to standardize accuracy metrics, report time, and safety outcomes consistently and validate performance in real-world critical care settings.

OBJECTIVE Achieving submillimetric accuracy in stereotactic neurosurgery remains critical for safely targeting deep brain structures. Current workflows rely on intraoperative CT to register stereotactic frames to preoperative imaging, but this introduces additional radiation exposure, cost, and workflow complexity. Three-dimensional surface scanning (3DSS) potentially offers a fast radiation-free alternative capable of capturing detailed craniofacial anatomy and frame geometry. Therefore, the aim of this cadaveric study was to evaluate the feasibility, accuracy, and navigational compatibility of integrating 3DSS into stereotactic workflows as a potential replacement for intraoperative CT. METHODS A human cadaveric head was imaged with both thin-slice CT and structured-light 3DSS after mounting stereotactic frame components. CT, 3DSS, and computer-aided design (CAD) models were registered using a multistep point cloud alignment pipeline involving the fast point feature histogram, the random sample consensus method, and the iterative closest point algorithm. Accuracy was assessed using surface deviation error, root mean square error (RMSE), and fiducial registration error within a commercial neuronavigation platform. RESULTS Fusion of the 3D facial scan with CT provided a mean surface deviation error of approximately 0.4 mm. Registration of the 3DSS-derived N-bar localizer to its CAD reference model produced a frame alignment RMSE of 1.3 mm. Within the navigation system, the 3DSS-based workflow achieved a mean fiducial registration error of 0.14 mm (range 0.02–0.20 mm), outperforming the conventional CT-based method (mean error 0.20 mm, range 0.09–0.40 mm). CONCLUSIONS The 3DSS-based method enabled precise submillimetric stereotactic registration without the need for intraoperative CT, reducing radiation exposure and operative complexity. This workflow is fully compatible with existing navigation systems and could serve as a practical radiation-free alternative in stereotactic neurosurgery. Future work will focus on automating frame detection, incorporating artificial intelligence–driven fusion methods, and validating this approach in live surgical settings.

Background: Invasive and non-invasive neuromodulation in psychiatry represents a burgeoning field that leverages advanced neuromodulation techniques to address substance use disorders (SUDs). Aims: This narrative review synthesizes findings from multiple reviews to evaluate the efficacy of neuromodulation in treating SUDs. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted between December 2024 and April 2025, focusing on systematic reviews and meta-analyses that examined various neuromodulation modalities, including repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), and deep brain stimulation (DBS). The selected reviews were analyzed to identify common themes, outcomes, and gaps in the current understanding of these treatments for SUDs. Results: 11 reviews met the final inclusion criteria; 5 focused on non-invasive neuromodulation (rTMS, tDCS) and 6 on invasive neuromodulation (DBS). Non-invasive neurostimulation was associated with modest improvements in craving and cognitive dysfunction in individuals with SUDs. Similarly, invasive neuromodulation (DBS), through high-frequency stimulation of the bilateral nucleus accumbens, appeared to reduce cravings and improve comorbid psychiatric symptoms in both preclinical and human studies. Importantly, small sample sizes, heterogeneity in targets and stimulation protocols, and short follow-up periods significantly limit the generalizability of current findings from both non-invasive and invasive neuromodulation studies. Conclusions: As novel and more effective therapies for the treatment of SUD are desperately needed, procedural interventional psychiatry holds promise. However, despite encouraging results, existing evidence is still preliminary, and larger, rigorously designed studies are warranted to further establish the safety and efficacy of neuromodulatory interventions for SUD treatment.

Abstract Introduction: Opioid use disorder constitutes a significant health crisis in the United States, contributing to high rates of opioid overdose-related deaths. A major driver of these fatalities is fentanyl, a potent synthetic opioid with both sedative and analgesic properties. These properties that make fentanyl clinically effective also increase its addictive potential. Early in opioid addiction, abnormal increases in extracellular dopamine in the nucleus accumbens (NAc) reinforce excessive drug-seeking behaviors which can lead to fatal respiratory depression. Given this mechanism, we investigated whether high frequency stimulation (HFS), mimicking human deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the ventral tegmental area (VTA) could block NAc dopamine increase following an acute lethal dose of fentanyl. We hypothesized that VTA DBS would mitigate these dopaminergic responses and prevent fentanyl-induced respiratory failure. Methods: Multiple cyclic square wave voltammetry (M-CSWV), was applied via a carbon fiber microelectrode in the NAc of urethane-anesthetized male Sprague-Dawley rats. Dopamine levels were recorded at baseline and following acute fentanyl (30 µg/kg, i.v.). HFS (130 Hz frequency, 200 µsec pulse width, and 0.2 mA amplitude) was administered to the VTA before and during fentanyl exposure. Results: Acute fentanyl administration resulted in a 178.2% increase in NAc dopamine levels from baseline, accompanied by a decline in respiratory rates to critically low levels (45 breaths per minute vs. 102 bpm), eventually resulting in 100% mortality. HFS of the VTA did not significantly alter baseline tonic dopamine levels or prevent fentanyl-induced dopamine increase in the NAc but was able to fully rescue fentanyl-induced respiratory failure.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Stereotactic procedures are used to manage a diverse set of patients across a variety of clinical contexts. The stereotactic devices and software used in these procedures vary between surgeons, but the fundamental principles that constitute safe and accurate execution do not. The aim of this work is to describe these principles to equip readers with a generalizable knowledge base to execute and understand stereotactic procedures. METHODS: A combination of a review of the literature and empirical experience from several experienced surgeons led to the creation of this work. Thus, this work is descriptive and qualitative by nature, and the literature is used to support instead of generate the ideas of this framework. RESULTS: The principles detailed in this work are categorized based on 5 clinical domains: imaging, registration, mechanical accuracy, target planning and adjustment, and trajectory planning and adjustment. Illustrations and tables are used throughout to convey the concepts in an efficient manner. CONCLUSION: Stereotactic procedures are complex, requiring a thorough understanding of each step of the workflow. The concepts described in this work enable functional neurosurgeons with the fundamental knowledge necessary to provide optimal patient care.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Identifying and characterizing sources of targeting error in stereotactic procedures is essential to maximizing accuracy, potentially improving surgical outcomes. We aim to describe a generic framework which characterizes sources of stereotactic inaccuracy. METHODS: We assembled a list of stereotactic systems: ROSA, Neuromate, Mazor Renaissance, ExcelsiusGPS, Cirq, STarFix (FHC), Nexframe, ClearPoint, CRW, and Leksell. We searched the literature for qualitative and quantitative work identifying and quantifying potential sources of inaccuracy and describing each system's implementation using Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research guidelines. Our literature search spanned 1969 to 2024, and various studies were included, with formats ranging from phantom studies to systematic reviews. Keyword searches were conducted, and the details about each system were used to create a framework for identifying and describing the unique targeting error profile of each system. RESULTS: We describe and illustrate the details of various sources of stereotactic inaccuracies and generate a framework to unify these sources into a single framework. This framework entails 5 domains: imaging, registration, mechanical accuracy, target planning and adjustment, and trajectory planning and adjustment. This framework was applied to 10 stereotactic systems. CONCLUSION: This framework provides a rubric to analyze the sources of error for any stereotactic system. Illustrations allow the reader to understand sources of error conceptually so that they may apply them to their practice.