SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

A comparison of electrophysiological microrecording versus automatic MR-based segmentation to determine subthalamic nucleus boundaries.

Acta Neurochir (Wien) · 2025-07-22

DOI: 10.1007/s00701-025-06619-zPMID: 40694157

Open accessComparative Study; research-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

PurposeAccurate placement of electrodes within the subthalamic nucleus is critical for deep brain stimulation (STN-DBS) in Parkinson's disease (PD). Our objective was to compare microelectrode recording (MER) and an automatic MR-based segmentation tool (BrainLab ElementsTM) for STN targeting and the determination of STN boundaries.MethodsSeventy-eight PD patients were included. Electrode placement within the STN and STN entry and exit points were determined by both methods and compared for concordance.ResultsOf 344 trajectories, 269 were inside the STN, with good concordance of both techniques (Fleiss' kappa 0.721, [95%CI 0.623, 0.819]). Concordance of MER and MR-based for the selection of the optimal trajectory was good (Fleiss' kappa 0.693, [95%CI 0.578, 0.808]), with less than 2.75mm difference between MER and MR-based for the STN entry (upper limit of agreement 2.752 [95%CI 2.365 to 3.138] mm; lower limit of agreement -2.406 [95%CI -2.793 to -2.020] mm) and exit points (upper limit of agreement 2.750 [95%CI 2.351 to 3.149] mm; lower limit of agreement -2.577mm [95%CI -2.976 to -2.178]).ConclusionWe demonstrated that MER and MR-based segmentation have a good concordance to determine STN boundaries during DBS surgery.

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.