Gautschi Oliver P, Smoll N R, Kotowski M, Schatlo B, Tosic M, Stimec B, Fasel J, Schaller K, Bijlenga P
Service de Neurochirurgie, Département de Neurosciences cliniques, Faculté de Médecine, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland,
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2014 Apr;156(4):777-85; discussion 785. doi: 10.1007/s00701-014-2026-8. Epub 2014 Feb 25.
Accurate placement of an external ventricular drain (EVD) for the treatment of hydrocephalus is of paramount importance for its functionality and in order to minimize morbidity and complications. The aim of this study was to compare two different drain insertion assistance tools with the traditional free-hand anatomical landmark method, and to measure efficacy, safety and precision.
Ten cadaver heads were prepared by opening large bone windows centered on Kocher's points on both sides. Nineteen physicians, divided in two groups (trainees and board certified neurosurgeons) performed EVD insertions. The target for the ventricular drain tip was the ipsilateral foramen of Monro. Each participant inserted the external ventricular catheter in three different ways: 1) free-hand by anatomical landmarks, 2) neuronavigation-assisted (NN), and 3) XperCT-guided (XCT). The number of ventricular hits and dangerous trajectories; time to proceed; radiation exposure of patients and physicians; distance of the catheter tip to target and size of deviations projected in the orthogonal plans were measured and compared.
Insertion using XCT increased the probability of ventricular puncture from 69.2 to 90.2 % (p = 0.02). Non-assisted placements were significantly less precise (catheter tip to target distance 14.3 ± 7.4 mm versus 9.6 ± 7.2 mm, p = 0.0003). The insertion time to proceed increased from 3.04 ± 2.06 min. to 7.3 ± 3.6 min. (p < 0.001). The X-ray exposure for XCT was 32.23 mSv, but could be reduced to 13.9 mSv if patients were initially imaged in the hybrid-operating suite. No supplementary radiation exposure is needed for NN if patients are imaged according to a navigation protocol initially.
This ex vivo study demonstrates a significantly improved accuracy and safety using either NN or XCT-assisted methods. Therefore, efforts should be undertaken to implement these new technologies into daily clinical practice. However, the accuracy versus urgency of an EVD placement has to be balanced, as the image-guided insertion technique will implicate a longer preparation time due to a specific image acquisition and trajectory planning.
准确放置外置脑室引流管(EVD)治疗脑积水对于其功能发挥以及将发病率和并发症降至最低至关重要。本研究旨在比较两种不同的引流管插入辅助工具与传统的徒手解剖标志法,并测量其有效性、安全性和精确性。
通过在两侧以Kocher点为中心打开大骨窗,准备10个尸头。19名医生分为两组(实习生和获得委员会认证的神经外科医生)进行EVD插入操作。脑室引流管尖端的目标是同侧的Monro孔。每位参与者以三种不同方式插入外置脑室导管:1)通过解剖标志徒手操作,2)神经导航辅助(NN),3)XperCT引导(XCT)。测量并比较脑室穿刺次数和危险轨迹;操作时间;患者和医生的辐射暴露;导管尖端到目标的距离以及在正交平面上投影的偏差大小。
使用XCT插入增加了脑室穿刺的概率,从69.2%提高到90.2%(p = 0.02)。非辅助放置的精确性明显较低(导管尖端到目标的距离为14.3±7.4毫米,而辅助放置为9.6±7.2毫米,p = 0.0003)。操作的插入时间从3.04±2.06分钟增加到7.3±3.6分钟(p < 0.001)。XCT的X射线暴露为32.23毫希沃特,但如果患者最初在杂交手术室成像,可降至13.9毫希沃特。如果患者最初按照导航协议成像,NN则无需额外的辐射暴露。
这项体外研究表明,使用NN或XCT辅助方法可显著提高准确性和安全性。因此,应努力将这些新技术应用于日常临床实践。然而,EVD放置的准确性与紧迫性必须平衡,因为图像引导插入技术由于特定的图像采集和轨迹规划,将意味着更长的准备时间。