Surgical Workflow Analysis: Ideal Application of Navigated Linear Array Ultrasound in Low-Grade Glioma Surgery

Abstract

Background Intraoperative imaging in low-grade glioma (LGG) surgery can facilitate residual tumor control and improve surgical outcome. The aim of the study was to evaluate the ideal application and typical interactions of intraoperative MRI (iMRI), conventional low-frequency intraoperative ultrasound (cioUS), and high-frequency linear array intraoperative ultrasound (lioUS) to optimize surgical workflow.

Methods Prospectively, we included 11 patients with an LGG. Typical procedural workflow in the iMRI suite was recorded with a compatible software. We took notes of duration, frequency of application, the surgeon's evaluation of image quality, and the respective benefit of lioUS (15 MHz), cioUS (7 MHz), and iMRI (1.5 T). With the help of the workflow software, we meticulously analyzed ∼ 55 hours of surgery.

Results During the interventions, lioUS was used more often (76.3%) than cioUS (23.7%) and showed a better mean image quality (1 = best to 6 = worst) of 2.08 versus 3.26 with cioUS. The benefit of the lioUS application was rated with an average of 2.27, whereas the cioUS probe only reached a mean value of 3.83. The most common application of lioUS was resection control (42.6%); cioUS was used mainly for orientation (63.2%). Overall, lioUS was used more often and was rated better for both the purposes just described regarding image quality and benefit. Estimated residual tumor based on lioUS alone was lower than the final residual tumor detected with iMRI (7.5% versus 14.5%). The latter technique was rated as the best imaging modality for resection control in all cases followed by lioUS.

Conclusion We provide proof of principle for workflow assessment in cranial neurosurgery. Although iMRI remains the imaging method of choice, lioUS has shown to be beneficial in a combined setup. Evaluation of lioUS was significantly superior to cioUS in most indications except for subcortical lesions.

Keywords

linear array intraoperative ultrasound - iMRI - LGG - resection control

• References

• 1 Louis DN, Ohgaki H, Wiestler OD , et al. The 2007 WHO classification of tumours of the central nervous system. Acta Neuropathol 2007; 114 (2) 97-109
• 2 Eyüpoglu IY, Hore N, Savaskan NE , et al. Improving the extent of malignant glioma resection by dual intraoperative visualization approach. PLoS ONE 2012; 7 (9) e44885
• 3 Nitta M, Muragaki Y, Maruyama T , et al. Updated therapeutic strategy for adult low-grade glioma stratified by resection and tumor subtype. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 2013; 53 (7) 447-454
• 4 Chang EF, Clark A, Smith JS , et al. Functional mapping-guided resection of low-grade gliomas in eloquent areas of the brain: improvement of long-term survival. Clinical article. J Neurosurg 2011; 114 (3) 566-573
• 5 Liang D, Schulder M. The role of intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging in glioma surgery. Surg Neurol Int 2012; 3 (Suppl. 04) S320-S327
• 6 Smoll NR, Gautschi OP, Schatlo B, Schaller K, Weber DC. Relative survival of patients with supratentorial low-grade gliomas. Neuro Oncol 2012; 14 (8) 1062-1069
• 7 Wang J, Duan YY, Liu X , et al. Application of intraoperative ultrasonography for guiding microneurosurgical resection of small subcortical lesions. Korean J Radiol 2011; 12 (5) 541-546
• 8 Ius T, Isola M, Budai R , et al. Low-grade glioma surgery in eloquent areas: volumetric analysis of extent of resection and its impact on overall survival. A single-institution experience in 190 patients: clinical article. J Neurosurg 2012; 117 (6) 1039-1052
• 9 Leighton C, Fisher B, Bauman G , et al. Supratentorial low-grade glioma in adults: an analysis of prognostic factors and timing of radiation. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15 (4) 1294-1301
• 10 Wang J, Liu X, Ba YM , et al. Effect of sonographically guided cerebral glioma surgery on survival time. J Ultrasound Med 2012; 31 (5) 757-762
• 11 Chacko AG, Kumar NKS, Chacko G, Athyal R, Rajshekhar V. Intraoperative ultrasound in determining the extent of resection of parenchymal brain tumours—a comparative study with computed tomography and histopathology. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2003; 145 (9) 743-748 ; discussion 748
• 12 Selbekk T, Brekken R, Indergaard M, Solheim O, Unsgård G. Comparison of contrast in brightness mode and strain ultrasonography of glial brain tumours. BMC Med Imaging 2012; 12: 11
• 13 Mair R, Heald J, Poeata I, Ivanov M. A practical grading system of ultrasonographic visibility for intracerebral lesions. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2013; 155 (12) 2293-2298
• 14 Gronningsaeter A, Kleven A, Ommedal S , et al. SonoWand, an ultrasound-based neuronavigation system. Neurosurgery 2000; 47 (6) 1373-1379 ; discussion 1379–1380
• 15 Coburger J, Scheuerle A, Thal DR , et al. Linear array ultrasound in low-grade glioma surgery: histology-based assessment of accuracy in comparison to conventional intraoperative ultrasound and intraoperative MRI. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2015; 157 (2) 195-206
• 16 Coburger J, König RW, Scheuerle A , et al. Navigated high frequency ultrasound: description of technique and clinical comparison with conventional intracranial ultrasound. World Neurosurg 2014; 82 (3–4) 366-375
• 17 Serra C, Stauffer A, Actor B , et al. Intraoperative high frequency ultrasound in intracerebral high-grade tumors. Ultraschall Med 2012; 33 (7) E306-E312
• 18 Bozinov O, Burkhardt JK, Woernle CM , et al. Intra-operative high frequency ultrasound improves surgery of intramedullary cavernous malformations. Neurosurg Rev 2012; 35 (2) 269-275 ; discussion 275
• 19 Gerganov VM, Samii A, Akbarian A, Stieglitz L, Samii M, Fahlbusch R. Reliability of intraoperative high-resolution 2D ultrasound as an alternative to high-field strength MR imaging for tumor resection control: a prospective comparative study. J Neurosurg 2009; 111 (3) 512-519
• 20 König RW, Heinen CP, Antoniadis G , et al. Image guided aneurysm surgery in a Brainsuite® ioMRI Miyabi 1.5 T environment. Acta Neurochir Suppl (Wien) 2011; 109: 107-110