Anatomical targeting for electrode localization in subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation: A comparative study

Abstract

AbstractBackground and PurposeIn deep brain stimulation (DBS), accurate electrode placement is essential for optimizing patient outcomes. Localizing electrodes enables insight into therapeutic outcomes and development of metrics for use in clinical trials. Methods of defining anatomical targets have been described with varying accuracy and objectivity. To assess variability in anatomical targeting, we compare four methods of defining an appropriate target for DBS of the subthalamic nucleus for Parkinson's disease.MethodsThe methods compared are direct visualization, red nucleus‐based indirect targeting, mid‐commissural point‐based indirect targeting, and automated template‐based targeting. This study assessed 226 hemispheres in 113 DBS recipients (39 females, 73 males, 62.2 ± 7.7 years). We utilized the electrode placement error (the Euclidean distance between the defined target and closest DBS electrode) as a metric for comparative analysis. Pairwise differences in electrode placement error across the four methods were compared using the Kruskal‐Wallis H‐test and Wilcoxon signed‐rank tests.ResultsInterquartile ranges of the differences in electrode placement error spanned 1.18‐1.56 mm. A Kruskal‐Wallis H‐test reported a statistically significant difference in the median of at least two groups (H(5) = 41.052, p < .001). Wilcoxon signed‐rank tests reported statistically significant difference in two comparisons: direct visualization versus red nucleus‐based indirect, and direct visualization versus automated template‐based methods (T < 9215, p < .001).ConclusionsAll methods were similarly discordant in their relative accuracy, despite having significant technical differences in their application. The differing protocols and technical aspects of each method, however, have the implication that one may be more practical depending on the clinical or research application at hand.