Haugen, Laura M.

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.

High-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (L-DLPFC) shows promise as a treatment for treatment-resistant depression in adolescents. Conventional rTMS coil placement strategies include the 5 cm, the Beam F3, and the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) neuronavigation methods. The purpose of this study was to use electric field (E-field) models to compare the three targeting approaches to a computational E-field optimization coil placement method in depressed adolescents. Ten depressed adolescents (4 females, age: 15.9±1.1) participated in an open-label rTMS treatment study and were offered MRI-guided rTMS five times per week over 6–8 weeks. Head models were generated based on individual MRI images, and E-fields were simulated for the four targeting approaches. Results showed a significant difference in the induced E-fields at the L-DLPFC between the four targeting methods (χ2=24.7, p<0.001). Post hoc pairwise comparisons showed that there was a significant difference between any two of the targeting methods (Holm adjusted p<0.05), with the 5 cm rule producing the weakest E-field (46.0±17.4V/m), followed by the F3 method (87.4±35.4V/m), followed by MRI-guided (112.1±14.6V/m), and followed by the computational approach (130.1±18.1V/m). Variance analysis showed that there was a significant difference in sample variance between the groups (K2=8.0, p<0.05), with F3 having the largest variance. Participants who completed the full course of treatment had median E-fields correlated with depression symptom improvement (r=−0.77, p<0.05). E-field models revealed limitations of scalp-based methods compared to MRI guidance, suggesting computational optimization could enhance dose delivery to the target.

Objective: Preliminary studies suggest that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) may be an effective and tolerable intervention for adolescents with treatment-resistant depression. There is limited rationale to inform coil placement for rTMS dosing in this population. We sought to examine and compare three localization techniques for coil placement in the context of an open-label trial of high-frequency rTMS for adolescents with treatment-resistant depression. Methods: Ten adolescents with treatment-resistant depression were enrolled in an open-label trial of high-frequency rTMS. Participants were offered 30 rTMS sessions (10 Hz, 120% motor threshold, left 3000 pulses applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex) over 6–8 weeks. Coil placement for treatment was MRI guided. The scalp location for treatment was compared with the locations identified with standard 5 cm rule and Beam F3 methods. Results: Seven adolescents completed 30 rTMS sessions. No safety or tolerability concerns were identified. Depression severity as assessed with the Children's Depression Rating Scale Revised improved from baseline to treatment 10, treatment 20, and treatment 30. Gains in depressive symptom improvement were maintained at 6 month follow-up visits. An MRI-guided approach for coil localization was feasible and efficient. Our results suggest that the 5 cm rule, Beam F3, and the MRI-guided localization approaches provided variable scalp targets for rTMS treatment. Conclusions: Open-label, high-frequency rTMS was feasible, tolerable, and effective for adolescents with treatment-resistant depression. Larger, blinded, sham-controlled trials are needed for definitive safety and efficacy data. Further efforts to understand optimal delivery, dosing, and biomarker development for rTMS treatments of adolescent depression are warranted.