Objective Laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) for mesial temporal lobe epilepsy (mTLE) has reported seizure freedom rates between 36% and 78% with at least 1 year of follow‐up. Unfortunately, the lack of robust methods capable of incorporating the inherent variability of patient anatomy, the variability of the ablated volumes, and clinical outcomes have limited three‐dimensional quantitative analysis of surgical targeting and its impact on seizure outcomes. We therefore aimed to leverage a novel image‐based methodology for normalizing surgical therapies across a large multicenter cohort to quantify the effects of surgical targeting on seizure outcomes in LITT for mTLE. Methods This multicenter, retrospective cohort study included 234 patients from 11 centers who underwent LITT for mTLE. To investigate therapy location, all ablation cavities were manually traced on postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which were subsequently nonlinearly normalized to a common atlas space. The association of clinical variables and ablation location to seizure outcome was calculated using multivariate regression and Bayesian models, respectively. Results Ablations including more anterior, medial, and inferior temporal lobe structures, which involved greater amygdalar volume, were more likely to be associated with Engel class I outcomes. At both 1 and 2 years after LITT, 58.0% achieved Engel I outcomes. A history of bilateral tonic‐clonic seizures decreased chances of Engel I outcome. Radiographic hippocampal sclerosis was not associated with seizure outcome. Significance LITT is a viable treatment for mTLE in patients who have been properly evaluated at a comprehensive epilepsy center. Consideration of surgical factors is imperative to the complete assessment of LITT. Based on our model, ablations must prioritize the amygdala and also include the hippocampal head, parahippocampal gyrus, and rhinal cortices to maximize chances of seizure freedom. Extending the ablation posteriorly has diminishing returns. Further work is necessary to refine this analysis and define the minimal zone of ablation necessary for seizure control.

Objective To identify features of ablations and trajectories that correlate with optimal seizure control and minimize the risk of neurocognitive deficits in patients undergoing laser interstitial thermal therapy (LiTT) for mesiotemporal epilepsy (mTLE). Methods Clinical and radiographic data were reviewed from a prospectively maintained database of all patients undergoing LiTT for the treatment of mTLE at the University of Miami Hospital. Standard pre- and post-operative evaluations, including contrast-enhanced MRI and neuropsychological testing, were performed in all patients. Laser trajectory and ablation volumes were computed both by manual tracing of mesiotemporal structures and by non-rigid registration of ablation cavities to a common reference system based on 7T MRI data. Results Among 23 patients with at least one-year follow-up, 15 (65%) were free of disabling seizures since the time of their surgery. Sparing of mesial hippocampal head was significantly correlated with persistent disabling seizures (p = 0.01). A lateral trajectory through the hippocampus showed a trend for poor seizure outcome (p = 0.08). Comparison of baseline and postoperative neurocognitive testing revealed areas of both improvement and worsening, which were not associated with ablation volume or trajectory. Significance At one-year follow-up, LiTT appears to be a safe and effective tool for the treatment of mTLE, though a longer follow-up period is necessary to confirm these observations. Better understanding of the impact of ablation volume and location could potentially fine-tune this technique to improve seizure freedom rates and associated neurological and cognitive changes.

Background: The microTargeting™ platform (MTP) stereotaxy system (FHC Inc., Bowdoin, Me., USA) was FDA approved in 2001 utilizing rapid-prototyping technology to create custom platforms for human stereotaxy procedures. It has also been called the STarFix (surgical targeting fixture) system since it is based on the concept of a patient- and procedure-specific surgical fixture. This is an alternative stereotactic method by which planned trajectories are incorporated into custom-built, miniature stereotactic platforms mounted onto bone fiducial markers. Our goal is to report the clinical experience with this system over a 6-year period. Methods: We present the largest reported series of patients who underwent deep brain stimulation (DBS) implantations using customized rapidly prototyped stereotactic frames (MTP). Clinical experience and technical features for the use of this stereotactic system are described. Final lead location analysis using postoperative CT was performed to measure the clinical accuracy of the stereotactic system. Results: Our series included 263 patients who underwent 284 DBS implantation surgeries at one institution over a 6-year period. The clinical targeting error without accounting for brain shift in this series was found to be 1.99 mm (SD 0.9). Operating room time was reduced through earlier incision time by 2 h per case. Conclusion: Customized, miniature stereotactic frames, namely STarFix platforms, are an acceptable and efficient alternative method for DBS implantation. Its clinical accuracy and outcome are comparable to those associated with traditional stereotactic frame systems.

No abstract

Interest and motivation remain strong for deep brain stimulation for psychiatric disease. Progress will require coordinated efforts by all stakeholders.

No abstract

A consensus has yet to emerge whether deep brain stimulation (DBS) for treatment-refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) can be considered an established therapy. In 2014, the World Society for Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery (WSSFN) published consensus guidelines stating that a therapy becomes established when “at least two blinded randomized controlled clinical trials from two different groups of researchers are published, both reporting an acceptable risk-benefit ratio, at least comparable with other existing therapies. The clinical trials should be on the same brain area for the same psychiatric indication.” The authors have now compiled the available evidence to make a clear statement on whether DBS for OCD is established therapy. Two blinded randomized controlled trials have been published, one with level I evidence (Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) score improved 37% during stimulation on), the other with level II evidence (25% improvement). A clinical cohort study (N = 70) showed 40% Y-BOCS score improvement during DBS, and a prospective international multi-center study 42% improvement (N = 30). The WSSFN states that electrical stimulation for otherwise treatment refractory OCD using a multipolar electrode implanted in the ventral anterior capsule region (including bed nucleus of stria terminalis and nucleus accumbens) remains investigational. It represents an emerging, but not yet established therapy. A multidisciplinary team involving psychiatrists and neurosurgeons is a prerequisite for such therapy, and the future of surgical treatment of psychiatric patients remains in the realm of the psychiatrist.

Previous studies have evaluated the accuracy of several approaches for the placement of electrodes for deep brain stimulation. In this paper, we present a strategy to minimize the effect of brain shift on the estimation of the electrode placement error (EPE) for a stereotactic platform in the absence of intraoperative imaging data, and we apply it to the StarFix microTargeting® Platform (FHC Inc., Bowdoin, Me., USA). This method involves comparing the intraoperative stereotactic coordinates of the implant with its position in the postoperative CT images in a population for which the effect of brain shift is minimal. The study we have conducted on 75 patients demonstrates that the EPE is overestimated at least by about 60% if brain shift is not taken into account, and shows a clinical accuracy of 1.24 ± 0.37 mm for the StarFix frame, which is similar to the reported G frame accuracy and better than the reported Nexframe accuracy (2.5 ± 1.4 mm) [Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 2007;85:235–242].