Scientific Online Resource System

International Bulletin of Otorhinolaryngology

Monocentric clinical experience with frameless biopsy of supratentorial intraaxial lesions

Martin Nikolaev Moynov

Abstract

Neuronavigated biopsy is a type of minimally invasive neurosurgical technique that allows careful planning and selection of one or more biopsy trajectories while preserving eloquent parenchymal areas by real-time tracking of the biopsy needle’s window.
The aim of this study is to evaluate the technical and diаgnоstic efficacy of neuronavigated (frameless) biopsy in patients with supratentorial intraaxial lesions and to present the surgical technique used in these biopsies.
A retrospective study has been conducted which includes the medical documentation of patients with intracranial lesions in whom neuronavigated frameless biopsy under general anesthesia was performed at the Clinic of Neurosurgery of University Hospital – “St. Marina” in Varna in the period from 2019 to 2021 year. 40 patients were included in the study. In 15 of the cases an isolated biopsy of the intraaxial lesion has been performed. In 25 of the cases a biopsy followed by an open excision of the intraaxial lesion has been performed. Dаtа were anаlyzed with SPSS versiоn 24.
The reported diagnostic yield was 95%. Final intraoperative histological diagnosis was reached in 38 patients. In one patient (2.5%) the histological diagnosis was changed after immunohistochemical examination. In one patient (2.5%) the histological diagnosis was changed after excision of the lesion. One microbiological diagnosis was reached. No clinically significant complications or fatalities associated with the surgical technique were reported.
Frаmeless biopsy in patients with suprаtentorial intraaxial lesions is a safe and effective procedure with high diagnostic value.

Full Text


References

McGirt MJ, Woodworth GF, Coon AL, et al. Independent predictors of morbidity after image-guided stereotactic brain biopsy: A risk assessment of 270 cases. J Neurosurg. 2005;102(5):897–901. doi:10.3171/jns.2005.102.5.0897

Hervey-Jumper SL, Berger MS. Maximizing safe resection of low- and high-grade glioma. J Neurooncol. 2016;130(2):269–282. doi:10.1007/s11060–016–2110–4

Aker FV, Hakan T, Karadereler S, Erkan M. Accuracy and diagnostic yield of stereotactic biopsy in the diagnosis of brain masses: Comparison of results of biopsy and resected surgical specimens. Neuropathology. 2005;25(3):207–213. doi:10.1111/j.1440–1789.2005.00634.x

Mladenovsk M, Valkov I, Ovcharov M, Vasilev N, Duhlenski I. High Grade Glioma Surgery – Clinical Aspects and Prognosis. Folia Med (Plovdiv). 2021;63(1):35–41. doi:10.3897/folmed.63.e55255

Ganslandt O, Behari S, Gralla J, Fahlbusch R, Nimsky C. Neuronavigation : concept, techniques and applications. Neurol India. 2002;50(3):244–255. https://www.neurologyindia.com/article.asp?issn=0028–3886

Wang X, Li L, Luo P, et al. Neuronavigation-assisted trajectory planning for deep brain biopsy with susceptibility-weighted imaging. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2016;158(7):1355–1362. doi:10.1007/s00701–016–2823–3

Enchev Y. Neuronavigation: Geneology, reality, and prospects. Neurosurg Focus. 2009;27(3):1–18. doi:10.3171/2009.6.FOCUS09109

Price R, Dorward NL. The advantages of frameless stereotactic biopsy over frame-based biopsy [3] (multiple letters). Br J Neurosurg. 2003;17(1):90–91. doi:10.3109/02688690309177985

Dhawan S, He Y, Bartek J, Alattar AA, Chen CC. Comparison of Frame-Based Versus Frameless Intracranial Stereotactic Biopsy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. World Neurosurg. 2019;127:607–616.e4. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2019.04.016

Enchev Y. Checklists in neurosurgery to decrease preventable medical errors: A review. Balkan Med J. 2015;32(4):337–346. doi:10.5152/balkanmedj.2015.15481

McConnell DJ, Fargen KM, Mocco J. Surgical checklists: A detailed review of their emergence, development, and relevance to neurosurgical practice. Surg Neurol Int. 2012;3(1). doi:10.4103/2152–7806.92163

Giordano M, Gallieni M, Zaed I, Samii A. Use of Frameless Stereotactic Navigation System Combined with Intraoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging and 5-Aminolevulinic Acid. World Neurosurg. 2019;131:32–37. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2019.07.171

B.V. M. StealthStation ® S7 ® Treatment Guidance System Manual. 2012;revision 1(9733782).

Zhang QJ, Wang WH, Wei XP, Yu YG. Safety and efficacy of frameless stereotactic brain biopsy techniques. Chinese Med Sci J. 2013;28(2):113–116. doi:10.1016/S1001–9294(13)60032–2

Widmann G, Schullian P, Ortler M, Bale R. Frameless stereotactic targeting devices: Technical features, targeting errors and clinical results. Int J Med Robot. 2012;8:1–16. doi:10.1002/rcs.441

Kesserwan MA, Shakil H, Lannon M, et al. Frame-based versus frameless stereotactic brain biopsies: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Neurol Int. 2021;12(52):1–8. doi:10.25259/SNI_824_2020

Dammers R, Haitsma IK, Schouten JW, Kros JM, Avezaat CJJ, Vincent AJPE. Safety and efficacy of frameless and frame-based intracranial biopsy techniques. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2008;150(1):23–29. doi:10.1007/s00701–007–1473-x

Livermore LJ, Ma R, Bojanic S, Pereira EAC. Yield and complications of frame-based and frameless stereotactic brain biopsy-The value of intra-operative histological analysis. Br J Neurosurg. 2014;28(5):637–644. doi:10.3109/02688697.2014.887657

Taweesomboonyat C, Tunthanathip T, Sae-Heng S, Oearsakul T. Diagnostic yield and complication of frameless stereotactic brain biopsy. J Neurosci Rural Pract. 2019;10(1):78–84. doi:10.4103/jnrp.jnrp_166_18

Jain D, Sharma MC, Sarkar C, Deb P, Gupta D, Mahapatra AK. Correlation of diagnostic yield of stereotactic brain biopsy with number of biopsy bits and site of the lesion. Brain Tumor Pathol. 2006;23(2):71–75. doi:10.1007/s10014–006–0204-y




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14748/orl.v17i4.8478

Refbacks

Font Size


|