SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Could the Anatomic Variants of the Superior Thalamic Vein (STV) Be Considered a Possible Landmark for Target Identification in Magnetic-Resonance-Guided Focused Ultrasound Procedures? A Pilot Study Using Susceptibility Weighted Imaging Sequences.

Diagnostics (Basel) · 2024-07-02

DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14131409PMID: 39001299

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

During magnetic-resonance-guided focused ultrasound ablation of the ventral intermediate thalamic nucleus (VIM) for essential tremor (ET) and Parkinson's disease (PD), targeting is generally performed using a standard atlas-based stereotactic approach. The purpose of our work is to evaluate the anatomic variations in the venous vasculature of the thalamus in patients treated with MRgFUS, as a possible landmark for targeting. We retrospectively evaluated the relationship between the obtained thalamotomy lesion and the ipsilateral superior thalamic vein (STV). A total of 36 patients (25 ET and 11 PD) who underwent MRgFUS treatment were evaluated, and the STV was studied with susceptibility weighted imaging (SWI) sequences. Based on the axial SWI images, the distance between the STV and the center of the lesion at the presumed site of the VIM was measured in follow-up MRI images one month after treatment. Statistical analysis shows that there is a correlation between the STV and the presumed site of the VIM. The STV visible in SWI could be used as an additional, real-time, and patient-specific anatomical landmark for VIM identification during MR examination and just before and during FUS treatment.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.