Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Arquivos Brasileiros de Neurocirurgia: Brazilian Neurosurgery 2023; 42(03): e233-e238
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1775556
Original Article

Accuracy Comparison between Frameless Biopsy and Frame-Based Biopsy: A Retrospective Study of a Case Series

Henrique Moura Braga 
1   Santa Casa de Misericórdia de Belo Horizonte, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil
,
Marcos Antônio Dellaretti 
2   Department of Neurosurgery, Santa Casa de Misericórdia de Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil
,
Marcello Penholate Faria 
2   Department of Neurosurgery, Santa Casa de Misericórdia de Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil
,
Júlio Cezar de Almeida 
2   Department of Neurosurgery, Santa Casa de Misericórdia de Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil
,
Leyzeane Marques do Nascimento 
2   Department of Neurosurgery, Santa Casa de Misericórdia de Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of frameless and frame-based techniques for biopsies of intracranial lesions in an exclusive assistance service at a public health center in Brazil (SUS).

Method A review of 65 medical records of patients with brain lesions who underwent a frame-based or frameless biopsy from September 2017 to July 2019 was performed.

Results Among the 65 patients who underwent biopsy, 42 were male, and 23 were female. The mean age was 53.1 years. Most patients (49; 75.4%) presented hemispheric lesions, and, of these, 27 were in the frontal lobe (41,5%). The diagnostic rate was 78.5% (51 of 65 patients), and glial neoplasia was the most common diagnosis. In addition to glial neoplasia, a wide range of pathologies were diagnosed, such as toxoplasmosis, metastasis, lymphoma, inflammatory lesions, and abscesses. Among the 14 patients (21.5%) with inconclusive results, 8 had gliosis without neoplasia (12.3%), 4 had necrosis (6.1%), and 2 had insufficient samples (3%).

The morbidity rate was 9.2%, with 4 cases of hemorrhage, 1 case of infection, and 1 case of worsening of neurological deficits. The mortality rate was 6.1% and occurred in all cases with hemorrhage.

There were no significant differences in the diagnosis or complication (morbidity and mortality) rates between the frame-based and frameless groups.

Conclusion The frame-based and frameless techniques for stereotactic biopsy present similar efficacy and safety.

Resumo

Objetivo Comparar a eficácia e a segurança das técnicas frameless e frame-based para biópsias de lesões intracranianas em um serviço de atendimento exclusivo de um centro de saúde público do Brasil (SUS).

Método Foi realizada uma revisão de 65 prontuários de pacientes com lesões cerebrais submetidos a biópsia com ou sem moldura no período de setembro de 2017 a julho de 2019.

Resultados Dos 65 pacientes submetidos à biópsia, 42 eram do sexo masculino e 23 do sexo feminino. A média de idade foi de 53,1 anos. A maioria dos pacientes (49; 75,4%) apresentava lesões hemisféricas e, destes, 27 eram no lobo frontal (41,5%). A taxa de diagnóstico foi de 78,5% (51 de 65 pacientes), e a neoplasia glial foi o diagnóstico mais comum. Além da neoplasia glial, foram diagnosticadas diversas patologias, como toxoplasmose, metástase, linfoma, lesões inflamatórias e abscessos. Dos 14 pacientes (21,5%) com resultados inconclusivos, 8 apresentavam gliose sem neoplasia (12,3%), 4 apresentavam necrose (6,1%) e 2 apresentavam amostras insuficientes (3%). A taxa de morbidade foi de 9,2%, com 4 casos de hemorragia, 1 caso de infecção e 1 caso de agravamento de déficits neurológicos. A taxa de mortalidade foi de 6,1% e ocorreu em todos os casos com hemorragia. Não houve diferenças significativas nas taxas de diagnóstico ou complicações (morbidade e mortalidade) entre os grupos frame-based e frameless.

Conclusão As técnicas frame-based e frameless para biópsia estereotáxica apresentam eficácia e segurança semelhantes.

Keywords

neurosurgery - biopsy - frameless - frame-based - intracranial - lesions

Palavras-chave

neurocirurgia - biópsia - frameless - frame-based - intracraniana - lesões


Publication History

Received: 16 March 2022

Accepted: 21 June 2022

Article published online:
29 September 2023

© 2023. Sociedade Brasileira de Neurocirurgia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 

  • References

  • 1 Friedman WA, Sceats Jr DJ, Nestok BR, Ballinger Jr WE. The incidence of unexpected pathological findings in an image-guided biopsy series: a review of 100 consecutive cases. Neurosurgery 1989; 25 (02) 180-184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Lobato RD, Rivas JJ, Cabello A, Roger R. Stereotactic biopsy of brain lesions visualized with computed tomography. Appl Neurophysiol 1982; 45 (4-5): 426-430
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Parney IF, Berger MS. Principles of brain tumor surgery. Handb Clin Neurol 2012; 104: 187-213
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Barnett GH, Miller DW. Brain biopsy and related procedures. In: Roberts DW, Barnett GH, Maciunas RJ. eds. Image-guided neurosurgery: clinical applications of surgical navigation. St. Louis: Quality Medical Publishing; 1998: 181-191
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Epstein F, Wisoff JH. Intrinsic brainstem tumors in childhood: surgical indications. J Neurooncol 1988; 6 (04) 309-317
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kitchen ND, Lemieux L, Thomas DG. Accuracy in frame-based and frameless stereotaxy. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 1993; 61 (04) 195-206
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Hall WA. The safety and efficacy of stereotactic biopsy for intracranial lesions. Cancer 1998; 82 (09) 1749-1755
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Bradac O, Steklacova A, Nebrenska K, Vrana J, de Lacy P, Benes V. Accuracy of VarioGuide frameless stereotactic system against frame-based stereotaxy: prospective, randomized, singlecenter study. World Neurosurg 2017; 104: 831-840
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Barnett GH, Miller DW, Weisenberger J. Frameless stereotaxy with scalp-applied fiducial markers for brain biopsy procedures: experience in 218 cases. J Neurosurg 1999; 91 (04) 569-576
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Livermore LJ, Ma R, Bojanic S, Pereira EA. Yield and complications of frame-based and frameless stereotactic brain biopsy–the value of intra-operative histological analysis. Br J Neurosurg 2014; 28 (05) 637-644
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Dorward NL, Alberti O, Dijkstra A, Buurman J, Kitchen ND, Thomas DG. Clinical introduction of an adjustable rigid instrument holder for frameless stereotactic interventions. Comput Aided Surg 1997; 2 (3-4): 180-185
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Paleologos TS, Dorward NL, Wadley JP, Thomas DG. Clinical validation of true frameless stereotactic biopsy: analysis of the first 125 consecutive cases. Neurosurgery 2001; 49 (04) 830-835 , discussion 835–837
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Woodworth GF, McGirt MJ, Samdani A, Garonzik I, Olivi A, Weingart JD. Frameless image-guided stereotactic brain biopsy procedure: diagnostic yield, surgical morbidity, and comparison with the frame-based technique. J Neurosurg 2006; 104 (02) 233-237
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Owen CM, Linskey ME. Frame-based stereotaxy in a frameless era: current capabilities, relative role, and the positive- and negative predictive values of blood through the needle. J Neurooncol 2009; 93 (01) 139-149
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Dorward NL, Paleologos TS, Alberti O, Thomas DG. The advantages of frameless stereotactic biopsy over frame-based biopsy. Br J Neurosurg 2002; 16 (02) 110-118
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Jain D, Sharma MC, Sarkar C, Gupta D, Singh M, Mahapatra AK. Comparative analysis of diagnostic accuracy of different brain biopsy procedures. Neurol India 2006; 54 (04) 394-398
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Spivak CJ, Pirouzmand F. Comparison of the reliability of brain lesion localization when using traditional and stereotactic image-guided techniques: a prospective study. J Neurosurg 2005; 103 (03) 424-427
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Dhawan S, He Y, Bartek Jr 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Ungar L, Nachum O, Zibly Z. et al. Comparison of Frame-Based Versus Frameless Image-Guided Intracranial Stereotactic Brain Biopsy: A Retrospective Analysis of Safety and Efficacy. World Neurosurg 2021; 29
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Smith JS, Quiñones-Hinojosa A, Barbaro NM, McDermott MW. Frame-based stereotactic biopsy remains an important diagnostic tool with distinct advantages over frameless stereotactic biopsy. J Neurooncol 2005; 73 (02) 173-179
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Pan HC, Wang YC, Lee SD, Chen NF, Chang CS, Yang DY. A modified method to perform the frameless biopsy. J Clin Neurosci 2003; 10 (05) 602-605
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar