Bauman, Megan M. J.

Abstract Cadaveric dissections, which are considered the most realistic model to study neuroanatomy, are expensive and not readily available in all centers. Given the surge of technological advances, incorporation of three‐dimensional (3D) scanning technologies and 3D models has gained popularity, both in the educational and clinical settings. We present our institutional experience in creating high‐fidelity neuroanatomical 3D models using three 3D scanning techniques: structured light 3D scanning, “manual” photogrammetry with a single DSLR camera, and “automatic” photogrammetry using a scanner equipped with five vertically arranged DSLR cameras and an automatic turntable within a square box. A survey study was conducted with 20 neurosurgical residents to assess the quality of the three resulting 3D models. In the study, “manual” photogrammetry was determined to be the most cost‐effective technique, while “automatic” photogrammetry was the most time‐effective and user‐friendly technique. The best visual quality was obtained using “manual” photogrammetry, as determined from survey results of 20 neurosurgical residents. While structured light 3D scanning had the lowest quality of resolution of the texture map, this technique was the most accurate to use for determining measurements, with a fixed accuracy of 0.05 mm. Overall, “manual” photogrammetry can allow for the most detailed 3D models and is the most cost‐effective strategy, while structured light 3D scanning is most suitable for obtaining clinically relevant measurements given the high degree of structural accuracy. Alternatively, “automatic” photogrammetry can serve as a hybrid between obtaining relatively high‐quality models in a time‐effective and user‐friendly manner.

AbstractObjectiveNeuromodulation for pediatric refractory epilepsy (PRE) is preferred when the seizure onset zone is not amenable to surgical resection, due to multifocal onset or involvement of eloquent cortex. Given its rapidly evolving landscape, we describe our institutional experience with neurostimulation therapies including deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the anterior nucleus (DBS‐ANT), the centromedian nucleus (DBS‐CM), responsive neurostimulation (RNS), and chronic subthreshold stimulation (CSS) to treat PRE.MethodsA retrospective chart review was conducted to identify pediatric patients (≤18 years of age) who presented to our institution with PRE. Patients were included who had at least 1 year of follow‐up after neurostimulation was started. Patients with ≥50% seizure frequency reduction at last follow‐up compared to baseline were classified as responders.ResultsA total of 35 patients (21 females) were included in the series. Nine patients underwent DBS‐ANT, 9 underwent DBS‐CM (+ ANT in 7 patients), 5 underwent RNS, and 12 underwent CSS. The median age at seizure onset and surgery was 8 and 16 years, respectively. Structural lesions were the most common etiology of epilepsy (54%). Eighteen patients had prior interventions and 13 received invasive EEG. Post‐operative complications following neurostimulation implantation were noted in three patients (9%). However, no permanent deficits were noted. Median follow‐up time was 46 months (range 13–162 months). Twenty‐three patients (59%) were responders (3/9 DBS‐ANT; 7/9 DBS‐CM; 4/5 RNS; 9/12 CSS). Further, median seizure reduction was 25% (DBS‐ANT), 89% (DBS‐CM), 87% (RNS), and 88% (CSS) across the cohort. Six patients (17%) had improved subjective neurocognitive outcomes while the other 29 had stable neurocognitive outcomes.SignificanceDBS, RNS, and CSS are safe and effective options for PRE. An understanding of treatment approaches can optimize results by tailoring therapy to individual patients.Plain Language SummaryThis study investigates the use of various neurostimulation therapies for treating pediatric refractory epilepsy (PRE) including deep brain stimulation (DBS), responsive neurostimulation (RNS), and chronic subthreshold stimulation (CSS). Overall, neuromodulation was found to be effective in reducing seizures in most patients, with 59% of patients showing at least a 50% reduction in seizure frequency. Additionally, the treatments were generally safe, with few complications and no instances of permanent deficits.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The lateral transorbital approach (LTOA) has gained increased recognition, but there is still a paucity of data on its effectiveness and advantages compared with the LTOA with lateral orbitotomy, herein denoted as the lateral orbital wall approach (LOWA). The aim of this study was to provide an anatomical reappraisal and the authors' clinical experience to compare the 2 approaches to the orbit and middle cranial fossa (MCF). METHODS: Eight latex-injected cadaveric specimens were used to perform LTOA and LOWA. The operative depth of each approach to key anatomical landmarks was measured. Fifty high-resolution computed tomography studies were reviewed to calculate the operative angles. We reviewed 40 consecutive cases treated with LTOA and LOWA at our institution. RESULTS: Compared with the LTOA, the LOWA provided shorter operative depths to the optic foramen ( P < .05), foramen ovale ( P < .05), and to the junction eyeball-cranial nerve II ( P = .13). It also offered better access to the anterior aspect of the orbit with less orbital content retraction. The LTOA and LOWA provided different operative angles to key anatomical landmarks in the orbit and MCF ( P < .05). In our chart review, 31 patients underwent the LTOA, whereas 9 underwent the LOWA to treat orbital and MCF lesions. Patients undergoing LOWA experienced postoperative complications related to periorbital nerves, such as frontalis palsy (n = 1) and supraorbital neuralgia (n = 1). Patients undergoing LTOA were more prone to complications associated with intraorbital manipulation (n = 4), including diplopia and ptosis. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that the LTOA can be an effective surgical strategy for addressing orbital apex and MCF lesions. Although the LOWA provides access to the aforementioned areas, it may be more suitable for anterior orbital lesions that require direct access with wider entry exposure and extensive orbital content manipulation.