English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to determine whether a modified registration method could reduce registration error and postoperative electrode vector error and to analyze the method's clinical significance in deep brain stimulation (DBS) surgery. METHODS The first part of the study involved a skull model, in which three registration methods were tested using the ROSA (robotic stereotactic assistance) system. In the second part, four registration methods were clinically tested in patients undergoing DBS surgery using the ROSA system. Thirty-three patients (65 sides, group I) underwent the conventional registration method 2E, and registration errors were recorded. Thirty-eight patients (75 sides, group II) underwent four types of modified registration methods including 2A, 2B, 2C, and 2D. Registration and electrode vector errors, intraoperative electrophysiological signal length (IESL), and DBS power-on voltage were recorded. The primary measure of efficacy was the change in the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) and UPDRS Part III scores from baseline to 10 weeks after surgery. RESULTS In the skull model, the registration error (mean ± SD) was 0.56 ± 0.11 mm for method 1A, 0.35 ± 0.11 mm for method 1B (vs. 1A, p < 0.001), and 0.90 ± 0.15 mm for method 1C (vs. 1A, p < 0.001). In the clinical study, method 2C was selected for DBS surgery in group II since it had the smallest registration error among the four methods tested. The registration error was 0.62 ± 0.22 mm (mean ± SD) for group I and 0.27 ± 0.07 mm for group II (p < 0.001). Postoperative electrode vector error was 0.97 ± 0.31 mm for group I and 0.65 ± 0.23 mm for group II (p < 0.001). There was a positive correlation between registration error and electrode vector error in both groups (group I: r = 0.69, p < 0.001; group II: r = 0.71, p < 0.001). The mean IESL was 5.0 ± 0.9 mm in group I and 5.8 ± 0.7 mm in group II (p < 0.001). The mean DBS power-on voltage was 1.63 ± 0.44 V in group I and 1.48 ± 0.38 V in group II (p = 0.027). In the UPDRS score, group I showed 50% ± 16% improvement and group II showed 52% ± 18% improvement (p = 0.724); there was no statistically significant difference in improvement on the UPDRS. CONCLUSIONS In DBS surgery assisted by the ROSA system, registration error and electrode vector error showed a positive correlation. The modified registration method could reduce the registration error and electrode vector error, but the long-term effects need to be further observed and evaluated.

Improved accuracy using a modified registration method of ROSA in deep brain stimulation surgery