Frame-based Stereotactic Biopsy: Description and Association of Anatomical, Radiologic, and Surgical Variables with Diagnostic Yield in a Series of 407 Cases

Abstract

Background and Study Aims Stereotactic biopsy is a versatile, minimally invasive technique to obtain tissue safely from intracranial lesions for their histologic diagnosis and therapeutic management. Our objective was to determine the anatomical, radiologic, and technical factors that can affect the diagnostic yield of this technique. We suggest recommendations to improve its use in clinical practice.

Methods This retrospective study evaluated 407 patients who underwent stereotactic biopsies in the past 34 years. The surgical methodology changed through time, distinguished by three distinct periods. Different stereotactic frames (Todd-Wells, CRW, Leksell), neuroimaging tests, and planning programs were used. Using SPSS software v.23, we analyzed a total of 50 variables for each case.

Results The series included 265 men (65.1%) and 142 women (34.9%) (average age 53.8 years). The diagnostic yield was 90.4%, morbidity was 5.65% (n = 17), and mortality was 0.98% (n = 4). Intraoperative biopsy improved accuracy (p = 0.024). Biopsies of deep lesions (p = 0.043), without contrast enhancement (p = 0.004), edema (p = 0.036), extensive necrosis (p = 0.028), or a large cystic component (p = 0.023) resulted in a worse diagnostic yield. Neurosurgeons inexperienced in stereotactic techniques obtained more nondiagnostic biopsies (p = 0.043). Experience was the clearest predictive factor of diagnostic yield (odds ratio: 4.049).

Conclusions Increased experience in stereotactic techniques, use of the most suitable magnetic resonance imaging sequences during biopsy planning, and intraoperative evaluation of the sample before finalizing the collection are recommended features and ways to improve the diagnostic yield of this technique.

Keywords

stereotactic biopsy - diagnostic yield - stereotactic techniques - brain tumor

Introduction

Stereotactic biopsy is a simple and precise procedure that neurosurgeons have used for more than a century.[1] [2] [3] [4] Since its emergence, the technique has combined and adapted its essential principles using the current technological advances. Today it constitutes the least invasive strategy to obtain a histologic sample for diagnosis and therapeutic evaluation of patients with intracranial lesions.

Stereotactic biopsy has a high percentage of accuracy and a low percentage of complications. Its accuracy was demonstrated in numerous studies, with an average diagnostic yield of ∼ 90 to 95%.[5] [6] [7] The large published series reflect an estimated morbidity of 1 to 6.5%, along with an estimated mortality of 0 to 1.7%.[8] [9] The most frequently reported procedure-related complication is intracranial hemorrhage, with an overall occurrence of 1.4 to 9.6%.[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

Despite the wide use of stereotactic biopsy, statistical analyses of the factors associated with its diagnostic yield are few, and even fewer have included large patient series. Consequently, their results are controversial, disparate, and occasionally even remarkable (i.e., sex and diagnostic yield).

We present our ample experience with stereotactic biopsy. This retrospective study provides a detailed statistical analysis with the aim of identifying specific reasons that could affect the histopathologic diagnoses obtained by the procedure. We also suggest ways to optimize the daily clinical practice of stereotactic biopsy.

Materials and Methods

Patients and Data Collection

The clinical histories and neuroimaging tests of 407 patients who underwent stereotactic biopsy in the past 34 years between 1982, when this technique was first used in our institution, and 2016 were retrieved and evaluated.

Fifty baseline patient and case variables were entered into a database and analyzed. The variables included the demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients, the anatomical and radiologic characteristics of the brain lesions,[17] [18] [19] [20] the surgical technique, the diagnosis and therapeutic course, and the prognosis.

Surgical Planning

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The inclusion and exclusion criteria considered when determining whether a patient was a candidate for stereotactic biopsy were previously described.[5] [6] [8] [10] [12] [14] [15] [21]

Surgical Technique

The surgical methodology used throughout the decades was determined by the equipment available in the hospital at the time. We identified three methodological periods.

Period 1 (1982–1991)

During this first stage, the Todd-Wells stereotactic device (Integra Radionics, Burlington, Massachusetts, United States),[22] and the Backlund spiral needle,[8] the first unit made by the senior author (J.H.V.), were used. As a peculiarity of this period, it is worth mentioning the use of an impedance meter (Integra Radionics, Burlington, Massachusetts, United States) to estimate tissue resistance throughout the selected trajectory.

The radiologic equipment included portable radiographic devices (C- arm; Philips, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) to which a 16-slice CT scanner (Siemens, Berlin, Germany) was added in 1985.

Initially, an angiogram was used to perform the calculations to reach the target, but after the acquisition of CT, the calculations were performed by super positioning between the radiographic images and the brain CT scan. The coordinates were obtained by locally developed MS-DOS application ([Fig. 1a], [1b]).

Fig. 1 Period 1 (1982–1991) surgical planning. (a) Angiography calculations. (b) Radiography calculations on Todd-Wells stereotactic guide.

Period 2 (1991–2011)

During period 2, the Cosman-Roberts-Wells stereotactic guide (CRW; Integra Radionics, Burlington, Massachusetts, United States)[23] [24] was used along with various other instruments such as the Sedan-Nashold biopsy needle.[25]

A CT scan, both 16 slice (Siemens, Berlin, Germany) and 40 slice (Philips, Amsterdam, The Netherlands), replaced conventional radiography beginning in 2002.

Until 1998, targets were established on CT images and calculated by CT software. Then a workstation with the Target 1.19 planning program was adopted (Brainlab, Munich, Germany) ([Fig. 2a], [2b]).

Fig. 2 Period 2 (1991–2011) surgical planning. (a) Computed tomography software calculations. (b) Calculations with Target v.1.19 program (Brainlab).

Period 3 (2011–2016)

During this most recent period, the Leksell stereotactic system (Elekta Instruments, Inc., Stockholm, Sweden)[26] and a Sedan/Nashold biopsy needle (Elekta Instruments, Stockholm, Sweden)[25] were used.

The hospital had a 64-slice CT scan (General Electric, Boston, Massachusetts, United States) and a 3T MRI (General Electric, Boston, Massachusetts, United States).

In most cases, targets were established on the most suitable MRI sequence, which was later fused with a stereotactic CT scan. The coordinates were obtained with Framelink and the Cranial v.3.0 planning program (Medtronic, Minneapolis, United States) ([Fig. 3a]).

Fig. 3 Period 3 (2011–2016) surgical planning. Calculations with Framelink program (Medtronic).

The most experienced stereotactic neurosurgeon retired during this period.

During all three periods, the biopsy technique consisted of making a drill or a burr hole and obtaining tissue samples comprising three or four cylinders at different depths of the trajectory of the needle on its way across the target, or targets, on the lesion.

Patients were monitored in the intensive care unit or recovery room for 24 hours after the biopsy was obtained. During the first two periods, postoperative control brain CT scans were only performed if there was a clinical deterioration of the patient, whereas in period 3, brain CT scans were ordered routinely 24 hours after the intervention.

Anesthetic Technique

Local anesthesia (bupivacaine 0.25% plus epinephrine) and light sedation were used during the surgical intervention. Exceptionally, general anesthesia was used in some pediatric patients or in patients with clinically significant mental alteration.

Histopathologic Evaluation

Intraoperative histologic evaluation was performed on tissue smears. If there was no evidence of abnormal tissue, additional samples were obtained. The definitive histopathologic evaluation was performed on fixed and stained tissue.

The World Health Organization's Classification of Tumours of the Central Nervous System (2007) was used,[27] not the recent 2016 classification,[28] due to the period in which the biopsies were performed and the pathologic diagnoses were made.

Nondiagnostic biopsies were classified as either inconclusive or negative following previously described criteria.[29] A biopsy was considered inconclusive if the samples included tissue representative of the lesion but a definite diagnosis could not be made. Negative biopsies failed to indicate the nature of the mass.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS v. 23 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, United States) using parametric tests. Descriptive statistics were reported for qualitative and quantitative variables. The tests used for the study of the statistical association between two independent variables were the chi-square test, with correction by means of the Fisher exact test when necessary, for the qualitative variables, and the Student t test and analysis of variance, with the Bonferroni test, for the analysis of the association between qualitative and quantitative variables with two or more than two categories, respectively. The association of two or more independent variables was tested by binary logistic regression (multivariate analysis). The results were considered statistically significant for p < 0.05.

Results

Demographic Characteristics: Patients and Pathologies

We analyzed a total of 407 patients who had undergone stereotactic biopsy in our department, 143 in period 1 (35.2%), 213 in period 2 (52.3%), and 51 in period 3 (12.5%).

The average age of the patients in the series was 53.8 years. Most of the patients were in the fifth and sixth decades of life (47.6%; n = 194), with an average of 57 years of age (range: 3–86 years). Fourteen (3.4%) were pediatric (patients ≤ 16 years of age). The sex ratio was 1.8:1, with 265 men (65.1%) and 142 women (34.9%).

The most frequent presenting symptoms were seizures in 24.6% (n = 100), motor deficit in 24.3% (n = 99), and intellectual function disorders in 14.3% (n = 58). Neurologic examinations found a motor deficit in 31.2% (n = 127), followed by the absence of findings in 27.8% (n = 113), intracranial hypertension in 16.2% (n = 66), and intellectual functioning disorders in 11.5% (n = 47).

Most lesions were on the left side (41.8%; n = 170). The frontal region was the most frequently biopsied anatomical region (24.8%; n = 101), and the cerebellum (1%; n = 4) and brainstem (1%; n = 4) were the least.

After histologic evaluation, the most frequently diagnosed pathologies were tumor in 78.8% (n = 321), followed by vascular pathology (i.e., hemorrhagic or ischemic stroke) in 5.4% (n = 22), radionecrosis in 0.5% (n = 2), and neurologic pathology (multiple sclerosis) in 0.2% (n = 1). The most frequently diagnosed tumor was a high-grade glioma (42.8%; n = 174); the biopsies were nondiagnostic in 9.6% (n = 39).

Forty patients (9.8%) had symptomatic intracranial hemorrhages (worsened the level of consciousness and/or produced new neurologic deficits after the biopsy). Most of those patients improved significantly in the following days. Twenty-three of the patients (57.5%) were discharged with a Karnofsky performance status > 80. The procedure-associated mortality was 0.98% (n = 4).

[Table 1] shows the demographic characteristics of the patients and pathologies in the series, and according to the methodological period.

Table 1 Descriptive profiles of patients and pathology

	Series (n = 407)	Period 1 (n = 143)	Period 2 (n = 213)	Period 3 (n = 51)
A. Patients
Age, y
Mean	53.8	49.9	55.1	59.6
Median	57	55	58	64
Range	3–86	3–86	4–82	15–81
Sex, n (%)
Men	265 (65.1)	90 (62.9)	144 (67.6)	31 (60.8)
Women	142 (34.9)	53 (37.1)	69 (32.4)	20 (39.2)
Symptomatology, n (%)
Intellectual disorders	58 (14.3)	12 (8.4)	32 (15)	14 (27.5)
Seizures	100 (24.6)	35 (24.5)	62 (29.1)	3 (5.9)
Intracranial hypertension	97 (23.8)	46 (32.2)	41 (19.2)	10 (19.6)
Motor	99 (24.3)	41 (28.7)	45 (21.1)	13 (25.5)
Sensory	6 (1.4)	0 (0)	6 (2.8)	0 (0)
Others	47 (11.5)	9 (6.2)	27 (12.6)	11 (21.5)
Signs, n (%)
None	113 (27.8)	24 (16.8)	69 (32.4)	20 (39.2)
Intellectual disorders	47 (11.5)	9 (6.3)	30 (14.1)	8 (15.7)
Intracranial hypertension	66 (16.2)	49 (34.2)	17 (7.9)	0 (0)
Motor	127 (31.2)	48 (33.6)	62 (29.1)	17 (33.3)
Sensory	10 (2.4)	2 (1.4)	7 (3.3)	1 (2)
Others	44 (10.8)	11 (2.7)	28 (13.1)	5 (9.8)
B. Pathology, n (%)
Side
Right	154 (37.8)	59 (41.2)	71 (33.3)	24 (47.1)
Left	170 (41.8)	66 (46.2)	88 (41.3)	16 (31.3)
Bilateral	83 (20.4)	18 (12.6)	54 (25.4)	11 (21.6)
Region
Telencephalon	307 (75.5)	114 (79.1)	160 (75.3)	33 (64.7)
Diencephalon	49 (12)	19 (13.3)	18 (7.5)	12 (23.5)
Cerebellum	4 (1)	2 (1.4)	2 (0.9)	0 (0)
Brainstem	4 (1)	2 (1.4)	1 (0.5)	1 (2)
Multiple	43 (10.5)	6 (4.2)	32 (15)	5 (9.8)
Diagnosis
Tumoral pathology	321 (78.6)	109 (76.3)	169 (79.4)	43 (84.2)
Vascular pathology	22 (5.4)	16 (11.2)	6 (2.7)	0 (0)
Infectious disease	22 (5.4)	5 (3.5)	15 (7.1)	2 (4)
Radionecrosis	2 (0.5)	0 (0)	2 (0.9)	0 (0)
Neurologic pathology	1 (0.2)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (2)
Nondiagnostic biopsy
Inconclusive	8 (2)	3 (2.1)	4 (1.9)	1 (2)
Negative	31 (7.6)	10 (7)	17 (8)	4 (7.8)
Hemorrhagic complications: Karnofsky performance status ≤ 70 at discharge	17 (5.6)	7 (4.8)	8 (3.7)	2 (3.9)
Mortality	4 (0.98)	0 (0)	1 (0.24)	3 (5.8)

Diagnostic Yield and Related Variables

The overall diagnostic yield of our stereotactic biopsies was 90.4%, and there were no statistically significant differences in the diagnostic yields among the three methodological periods (p = 0.864).

Lesion Topography

Biopsies performed on deep lesions, specifically lesions located in diencephalic structures, had a worse diagnostic yield (p = 0.043). In contrast, the biopsies of brainstem lesions (1%; n = 4) reached a 100% diagnostic yield.

Radiologic Characteristics of the Lesion

Biopsies of hypodense lesions without contrast enhancement (18.9%; n = 77), biopsies of lesions with patent and extensive edema (45.4%; n = 185), patent and extensive necrosis (1%; n = 251), or biopsies of largely cystic lesions (21.6%; n = 88) showed a lower diagnostic yield (p < 0.05).

Multivariate logistical regression analysis showed that both the absence of contrast enhancement, with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.313 (p = 0.002), and the presence of a large cystic component, with an OR of 0.396 (p = 0.014), were configured as predictor variables of a worse diagnostic yield of the biopsy.

Surgical Procedure Peculiarities

On the one hand, and in relation to the number of targets, because we obtained between three and four cylinders in each target routinely, we decided to analyze whether the establishment of one or more targets with their respective trajectories on different lesion points affected the diagnostic yield of the technique. In the series, we found no statistical significance (p = 0.054). However, during period 1, we observed a greater diagnostic yield if the samples were obtained from two or more targets (p = 0.021).

On the other hand, the performance of an intraoperative biopsy was requested on 92.1% of the procedures (n = 375). We obtained 7.2% of nondiagnostic biopsies if the intraoperative smear was made compared with 37.5% of nondiagnostic biopsies if it was not made (p = 0.024).

Neurosurgeońs Experience

In this series, the biopsy tissue was obtained from 80.8% of the patients (n = 329) by a neurosurgeon with experience in stereotactic techniques. The percentages were 80.4% (n = 115) in period 1, 89.6% (n = 191) in period 2, and 70.6% (n = 36) in period 3.

The analysis showed that 16.6% of the nondiagnostic biopsies were obtained by an inexperienced neurosurgeon compared with 6.9% obtained by an experienced neurosurgeon (p = 0.001). Surgeon experience was also associated with ordering an intraoperative biopsy. Nonexpert neurosurgeons requested an intraoperative biopsy in 52.5% of the cases; expert neurosurgeons asked for it in 87.2% of the procedures (p = 0.001).

Finally, the multifactorial analysis showed that experience in stereotactic techniques, with an OR of 4.049 (p = 0.001), was the strongest predictor of diagnostic yield.

[Table 2] shows the analytical results, in the series and according to the methodological period.

Table 2 Diagnostic yield and related variables

	Series (n = 407) p [∗]	I Period (n = 143) p [∗]	II Period (n = 213) p [∗]	III Period (n = 51) p [∗]	Predictive Factor (OR)
A) Lesion
Anatomical Variables
Location	p = 0.043[∗]	p = 0.493	p = 0.086	p = 0.043[∗]	–
Radiological variables
Contrast	p = 0.004[∗]	p = 0.008[∗]	p = 0.072	p = 0.634	0.313
Edema	p = 0.036[∗]	p = 0.255	p = 0.160	p = 0.271	–
Necrosis	p = 0.743	p = 0.059	p = 0.807	p = 0.040[∗]	–
Cyst	p = 0.023[∗]	p = 0.258	p = 0.072	p = 0.051	0.396
B) Surgery
Procedure
Number of targets	p = 0.054	p = 0.021[∗]	p = 0.690	p = 0.739	–
Intraoperative biopsy	p = 0.024[∗]	p = 0.521	p = 0.045[∗]	p = 0.013[∗]	–
Operator’s experience	p = 0.001[∗]	p = 0.521	p = 0.005[∗]	p = 0.014[∗]	4.049

^∗ The results were considered statistically significant if p < 0.05.

Nondiagnostic Biopsies

Overall, 39 of the biopsies (9.6%) were nondiagnostic. Of those, 2% (n = 8) were inconclusive, and 7.6% (n = 31) were negative.

In these patients, the stereotactic biopsy was repeated once in 71.7% of the cases (n = 28) and twice in 10.2% of the cases (n = 4).

In this series of 407 patients, 82 (20.1%) underwent craniotomies after the biopsy. The main reasons were either surgical resection of the lesion was considered the best treatment strategy after histologic results (64.7%; n = 53) or there were doubts about these histologic results because of the clinical condition and the neuroimaging tests of the patient (26.8%; n = 22). In seven patients (8.5%), the indication for surgery was based on not obtaining a diagnosis by stereotactic methods.

Discussion

Since the mid-20th century, stereotactic techniques have been used as one of the first minimally invasive strategies adapted to the field of neurosurgery.[2] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] Today stereotactic procedures are very versatile and used in diverse surgical procedures including brain tissue biopsy, production of lesions in the brain parenchyma, stimulation of brain regions, or the administration of intracranial treatments, all with extreme precision.

Diagnostic Yield of Stereotactic Biopsy

Successful histologic diagnosis of tissue obtained by stereotactic biopsy depends on the correct performance of the procedure, the suitability of the biopsy technique, and the adequacy of the samples obtained. In our hands, 9.6% of the biopsies were nondiagnostic. Our result is consistent with previous reports ([Table 3]).[36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63]

Table 3 Review of frame-based biopsies, large series diagnostic yield, complications, and mortality

Study	Patients, N	Intraoperative biopsy	Nondiagnostic biopsy, N (%)	Morbidity,N (%)	Mortality, N (%)
Ostertag et al[36] (1980)	302	Yes Smear	26 (8.7)	10 (3.3)	7 (2.3)
Edner[37] (1981)	345	Yes Smear	–	10 (2.9)	3 (0.9)
Sedan et al[38] (1984)	318	–	27 (8.5)	15 (4.7)	2 (0.6)
Mundinger[39] (1985)	815	Yes Smear	–	33 (3)	8 (0.6)
Davis et al[40] (1987)	439	–	–	17 (0.4)	9 (0.2)
Apuzzo et al[5] (1987)	500	Yes Smear	22 (4.4)	5 (1)	1 (0.2)
Blaauw and Braakman[41] (1988)	243	–	29 (11.9)	10 (4.1)	1 (0.4)
Thomas and Nouby[42] (1989)	300	Yes Smear	21 (7.2)	13 (4.4)	1 (0.3)
Wild et al[43] (1990)	200	–	12 (6)	17 (8.5)	2 (1)
Kellyl[44] (1992)	547	–	10 (1.8)	16 (2.9)	2 (0.3)
ÓNeill et al[45] (1992)	259	Yes Smear	17 (6.5)	17 (6.5)	8 (3.3)
Heilbrun et al[46] (1993)	357	–	11 (3.1)	23 (6.4)	6 (1.7)
Gomez et al[47] (1993)	501	Yes Frozen section	8 (3.7)	23 (10.8)	0 (0)
Ranjan et al[29] (1994)	407	Yes Smear	29 (7.1)	–	–
Bernstein and Parrent[48] (1994)	300	Yes Frozen section	14 (4.7)	14 (4.7)	5 (1.7)
Regis et al[49] (1996)	370	Several centers	22 (6)	6 (1.6)	5 (1.5)
Sawin et al[50] (1998)	225	–	–	12 (5.3)	1 (0.4)
Hall[51] (1998)	7471		672 (9)	261 (3.5)	52 (0.7)
Yu et al[52] (2000)	550	–	19 (3.4)	42 (7.8)	0 (0)
Field et al[15] (2001)	500	–	28 (5.6)	46 (9.2)	1 (0.2)
Kreth et al[16] (2001)	345	Yes Smear	7 (2)	11 (3.1)	0 (0)
Kim et al[53] (2003)	300	Yes Frozen section	25 (8.3)	12 (3.9)	2 (0.6)
Grossman et al[54] (2005)	355	No	22 (6.1)	25 (7)	2 (0.6)
McGirt et al[55] (2005)	270	Yes Frozen section	–	36 (14)	3 (1)
Tilgner et al[56] (2005)	5000	Yes Smear	230 (4.6)	65 (1.3)	35 (0.7)
Dammers et al[57] (2008)	227	Yes Frozen section	23 (10.3)	28 (12.5)	9 (4)
Kongkham et al[58] (2005)	622	Yes Frozen section	10 (1.6)	43 (6.9)	8 (1.3)
Ersahin et al[59] (2011)	290	Yes Smear	13 (4.5)	12 (4.1)	2 (0.8)
Eibach et al[60] (2014)	315	–	–	19 (6.3)	–
Waters et al[61] (2013)	267	–	18 (6.7)	1 (0.5)	0 (0)
Livermore et al[12] (2014)	302	Yes Smear	14 (5.5)	9 (3.7)	5 (1.7)
Kellermann et al[62] (2017)	230	–	7 (3)	8 (3.5)	1 (0.4)
Hamisch et al[63] (2017)	285	Yes Smear	7 (2.5)	2 (0.7)	0 (0)
Lara-Almunia and Hernandez-Vicente (2018)	407	Yes Smear	39 (9.6)	17 (5.6)	4 (0.98)

Among its diverse indications,[5] [6] [8] [10] [12] [14] [15] [21] stereotactic biopsy is especially useful for reaching lesions located in deep territories, areas that normally belong to the diencephalic structures of the human brain. In those areas, the need for careful planning and increased possibility of mistakes or complications may affect the diagnostic yield. However, the data are not conclusive. An evaluation of 351 cases by Livermore et al found that the percentage of nondiagnostic biopsies was higher if they were performed in deep lesions (p = 0.011).[12] Kim et al, in a series of 308 patients,[53] and Tsermoulas et al, with 124 patients,[64] did not find that the depth influenced the diagnostics (p > 0.05). However, studies such as those by Jain et al, in a series of only 86 cases, found that the diagnostic yield was greater in tissue obtained from the thalamus or the basal ganglia (85.4%), compared with tissue from the cerebral hemispheres (75%).[65] Our results show that increased depth of the lesion was associated with a decreased diagnostic yield (p = 0.043), and we believe the large sample size facilitated obtaining this result.

In relation to deep locations, brainstem biopsies should be mentioned, due to the high eloquence of the area. Both the large published series made up of pediatric and adult patients (Kickingereder et al[66] or Samadani et al)[67] and those with pediatric patients (Rajshekhar et al[68] or Puget et al)[69] showed diagnostic yield figures for the technique close to 100%. The consistency of diagnostic yield from this location might result from established standardized stereotactic techniques to perform the biopsies in this region and from the relatively limited pathologic differential diagnosis of brainstem lesions, especially in children.

Selecting the appropriate biopsy site is an important determinant of obtaining an adequate histologic sample for evaluation. The choice of biopsy site could be influenced by the morphology of the lesion in the neuroimaging tests.

Previous studies found that biopsies performed on hypodense lesions and/or those with scarce or no contrast enhancement were the most likely to be nondiagnostic.[29] [64] [70] [71] [72] However, none of these reports were statistically significant (p > 0.05). Nevertheless, in our work we have been able to demonstrate statistically what was only a perception in those studies (p = 0.004). In this patient series, biopsies of lesions without contrast enhancement, with an OR of 0.313, were 23.8% more likely to be nondiagnostic. This could be explained by the fact that most hypodense lesions without contrast uptake are generally tumors with a low degree of differentiation, and they are difficult to distinguish by other histologic findings such as gliosis.

Unlike many other studies, we included other radiologic features of the pathology in the evaluation, finding that significant edema (p = 0.036) or necrosis (p = 0.040) was associated with nondiagnostic biopsies. This could have resulted from difficulties in defining the lesion boundaries and consequently establishing the most appropriate biopsy site.

Biopsies of lesions with a large cystic component also had a reduced diagnostic yield (p = 0.023). This feature, with an OR of 0.396, is also a predictive factor for diagnostic yield, such that the biopsies performed on lesions with a large cystic component had a 28.3% probability of being nondiagnostic. This result might be explained by the limited amount of histologically useful tissue that is generally obtained from such lesions. It may also have resulted from changes in the preplanned target after nonintentional drainage of the cystic component during the first acquisition of the histologic material. Those changes should be avoided.

The study findings stress the importance of systematic evaluation of suitable MRI sequences during the surgical planning of the biopsy to obtain a detailed map of the brain anatomy that shows the actual limits of the lesion and provides a three-dimensional image of the target, especially for deep locations.

In recent years, the routine integration of positron emission tomography (PET) with 18F-labeled fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) in the planning of stereotactic brain biopsy has increased the technique's diagnostic yield.[73] [74] [75] Fourteen procedures in period 3 used ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT guidance. The patients had multiple intracranial lesions or a controversial differential diagnosis on conventional neuroimaging techniques. A diagnostic yield of 100%, transitory morbidity of 7.1% (n = 1), and 0% mortality was obtained in the 14 patients.

The number of biopsy samples should be enough to arrive at a diagnosis. Jain et al[49] and Brainard et al.[76] suggested that diagnostic yield increased with the number of samples obtained, but the difference did not achieve statistical significance (p > 0.05). Obtaining samples from more than one target could facilitate determining the degree of histologic differentiation, especially in heterogeneous lesions, and could improve diagnostic yield. In this series, the overall association of the number of samples and diagnostic yield was not significant (p = 0.054). Period 1 was an exception, possibly because of the degree of heterogeneity in the number of targets (two or more targets were established in 16.1% of the cases). We could see a greater diagnostic yield if various samples, between three and four cylinders, were obtained from two or more targets (p = 0.021). Currently available planning software and the use of drills instead of burr holes facilitates obtaining several tissue samples from different targets.

In addition to adequate size, the histologic sample should also have adequate quality, which means that intraoperative assessment of the sample is highly relevant. Frozen sections[77] [78] and tissue smears[79] [80] are quick and simple ways to achieve this. Previous studies confirmed that intraoperative assessment decreased the number of nondiagnostic samples (p < 0.05)[12] [45] [81] and coincided with the definitive pathologic diagnosis in 90.3% of cases.[56] The results obtained in this series were consistent with previous reports, with a higher percentage of diagnostic biopsies in procedures that included an intraoperative evaluation (p = 0.024). The agreement of the intraoperative and definitive histologic diagnosis was 90.7%.

Close collaboration with the pathology laboratory is essential, and the pathologist should be aware of the clinical history of the patient, the radiologic features of the lesion, and the most probable differential diagnosis.

The selection of the target and the trajectory directly depend on the neurosurgeon. In work by authors such as Ranjan et al, it is appreciated that experienced neurosurgeons in stereotactic techniques obtained approximately half the number of nondiagnostic biopsies (2.4%) as inexperienced neurosurgeons did (5.7%).[29] Other studies did not make the same observation.[43] [45] None of these studies achieved statistical significance (p > 0.05). Nevertheless, in our study we found that inexperienced neurosurgeons obtained nearly three times more nondiagnostic biopsies (16.6%) compared with experienced neurosurgeons (6.9%), which was statistically significant (p = 0.001). This fact was more remarkable in period 3 in which we had the greatest number of biopsies performed by inexperienced neurosurgeons (n = 15; 29.4%). As an example, in this last period, 12 biopsies were performed on diencephalic structures. A total of 4 (33.3%) were performed by inexperienced neurosurgeons. All these biopsies were nondiagnostic. We think this result determined a worse diagnostic yield if the stereotactic biopsy was performed on diencephalic structures in this series (p = 0.043). In addition, inexperienced neurosurgeons only requested intraoperative biopsies in 52.5% of the cases compared with the 87.2% requested by experienced neurosurgeons (p = 0.001). Finally, with an OR of 4.049, we found that the neurosurgeon's experience was the most clear predictive factor of diagnostic yield. There was an 80.1% higher probability that the biopsy was diagnostic if it had been performed by a neurosurgeon experienced in stereotactic techniques.

We believe that experience significantly influenced the period 3 results and explains why technical advances and sophistication of the equipment used did not result in statistically important improvements in the reliability and safety of the stereotactic biopsies in this period. The appropriate and thorough management of stereotactic biopsy techniques requires neurosurgeons to have a special interest in neuroradiology, to select the most useful radiologic tests before surgery, and in neuro-oncology, to possess the knowledge and clinical judgment that allows them to connect with the different specialties involved in the treatment of patients with intracranial lesions. They should also have adequate stereotactic training that provides them with in-depth knowledge of the principles of stereotactic neurosurgery, the technology related to the procedures, the use of the available instruments, as well as how to plan meticulously and carefully carry out the technique. The training would ensure fully exploiting the benefits and minimizing the risks of an extremely powerful surgical tool.

Postbiopsy Patient Management

Obtaining a nondiagnostic biopsy is an unfavorable result that should be taken into account before indicating a stereotactic biopsy. If the neurosurgeon suspects this during surgery, intraoperative biopsy, the precision of the stereotactic instruments, and the suitability of the planned target and trajectory should be evaluated and/or adjusted.[82]

If the surgical intervention has been completed and the final histologic diagnosis is inconclusive or ambiguous, we believe there are various management possibilities based on the clinical situation of the patient and the neuroimaging findings.

Because a stereotactic biopsy was initially considered the most suitable technique, it is reasonable to consider offering the patient a repeat biopsy. This was the course followed in 81.9% of our nondiagnostic biopsies.

If the patient refuses this option or if the lesion is located in a relatively accessible anatomical region, a craniotomy to obtain tissue for histologic study can be offered. This was the course followed in the remaining 18.1% of cases with nondiagnostic biopsies ([Fig. 4]).

Fig. 4 Postbiopsy patient handling.

Conclusions

Stereotactic biopsy constitutes a perfectly consolidated procedure in neurosurgical departments. It is a versatile technique that allows a safe and effective histologic diagnosis and therapeutic planning in patients with intracranial lesions.

Our findings confirm that obtaining more than one tissue sample and performing an intraoperative study help ensure the quality of the histologic material and thus improve the diagnostic yield of this technique. Similarly, the use of the most suitable MRI sequences during biopsy planning is required to obtain a detailed map of the lesion and its relation to the brain anatomy. This facilitates establishing the target and the most appropriate trajectory.

Technological advances achieved in the previous decades and their integration into stereotactic biopsy procedures have placed increasingly manageable instrumentation and simpler planning tools at our disposal. This has clearly made it easier to perform this neurosurgical intervention. Nevertheless, to obtain the best results, it is necessary to optimize each neurosurgeon's experience and interest in stereotactic techniques, neuroradiology, and neuro-oncology. These features are essential to determine the indication for stereotactic biopsy, the establishment of the best targets and their trajectories, and the appropriate intraoperative management of the histologic samples obtained.

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

• References

• 1 Spiegel EA, Wycis HT, Marks M, Lee AJ. Stereotaxic apparatus for operations on the human brain. Science 1947; 106 (2754): 349-350
• 2 Spiegel EA. Guided Brain Operations: Methodological and Clinical Developments in Stereotactic Surgery. Contributions to the Physiology of Subcortical Structures. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1983
• 3 Gildenberg PL. The history of stereotactic neurosurgery. Neurosurg Clin N Am 1990; 1 (04) 765-780
• 4 Gildenberg PL. Spiegel and Wycis—the early years. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 2001; 77 (1–4): 11-16
• 5 Apuzzo MLJ, Chandrasoma PT, Cohen D, Zee CS, Zelman V. Computed imaging stereotaxy: experience and perspective related to 500 procedures applied to brain masses. Neurosurgery 1987; 20 (06) 930-937
• 6 Colbassani HJ, Nishio S, Sweeney KM, Bakay RA, Takei Y. CT-assisted stereotactic brain biopsy: value of intraoperative frozen section diagnosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1988; 51 (03) 332-341
• 7 Kelly PJ. Applications and methodology for contemporary stereotactic surgery. Neurol Res 1986; 8 (01) 2-12
• 8 Bernstein M, Parrent AG. Complications of CT-guided stereotactic biopsy of intra-axial brain lesions. J Neurosurg 1994; 81 (02) 165-168
• 9 Watanabe E, Watanabe T, Manaka S, Mayanagi Y, Takakura K. Three-dimensional digitizer (neuronavigator): new equipment for computed tomography-guided stereotaxic surgery. Surg Neurol 1987; 27 (06) 543-547
• 10 Chen T, Apuzzo M. Biopsy techniques and instruments. In: Gildenberg PL, Tasker R. , eds. Textbook of Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1998: 397-410
• 11 De la Porte C. Technical possibilities and limitations of stereotaxy. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1993; 124 (01) 3-6
• 12 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
• 13 Lunsford LD, Coffey RJ, Cojocaru T, Leksell D. Image-guided stereotactic surgery: a 10-year evolutionary experience. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 1990; 54-55 375-387
• 14 Kulkarni AV, Guha A, Lozano A, Bernstein M. Incidence of silent hemorrhage and delayed deterioration after stereotactic brain biopsy. J Neurosurg 1998; 89 (01) 31-35
• 15 Field M, Witham TF, Flickinger JC, Kondziolka D, Lunsford LD. Comprehensive assessment of hemorrhage risks and outcomes after stereotactic brain biopsy. J Neurosurg 2001; 94 (04) 545-551
• 16 Kreth FW, Muacevic A, Medele R, Bise K, Meyer T, Reulen HJ. The risk of haemorrhage after image guided stereotactic biopsy of intra-axial brain tumours—a prospective study. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2001; 143 (06) 539-545 ; discussion 545–546
• 17 Netter FH. Atlas of Human Anatomy. Marlton, NJ: Saunders; 2014
• 18 Paulsen F. Sobotta. Atlas of Human Anatomy. Barcelona, Spain: Elsevier; 2012
• 19 Scott W. Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain and Spine. New York, NY: Raven Press; 1991
• 20 Hariz M. CT scanning in stereotactic neurosurgery. In: Gildenberg PL, Tasker R. , eds. Textbook of Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1998: 265-270
• 21 Apuzzo ML, Sabshin JK. Computed tomographic guidance stereotaxis in the management of intracranial mass lesions. Neurosurgery 1983; 12 (03) 277-285
• 22 Todd EM. Todd-Wells Manual for Stereotactic Procedures. Randolph, MA: Codman and Shurtleff; 1967
• 23 Arle J. Development of a classic: the Todd-Wells apparatus, the BRW, and the CRW stereotactic frames. In: Lozano AM, Gildenberg PL, Tasker RR. , eds. Textbook of Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2009: 453-467
• 24 Cosman E. Development and technical features of the Cosman-Roberts-Wells (CRW) stereotactic system. In: Pell F, Thomas DGT. , eds. Handbook of Stereotaxy Using the CRW Apparatus. Baltimore, MD: William & Wilkins; 1994: 1-52
• 25 Sedan R, Peragut JC, Vallicioni P. Présentation d'un appareillage original pour biopsie cérébrale et tumorale en conditions stéréotaxiques. Paper presented at: annual meeting of the Société de Neurochirurgie Française; 1975
• 26 Elekta. Leksell Stereotactic System. Overview. Sweden (Europe); 2012. Available at: https://www.elekta.com/dam/jcr:6a79db59-172c-4e65-9c25-23ac5e02ce6f/Leksell-Stereotactic-System-product-brochure.pdf. Accessed December 13, 2018
• 27 Louis DN, Ohgaki H, Wiestler OD. , et al. The 2007 WHO classification of tumours of the central nervous system. Acta Neuropathol 2007; 114 (02) 97-109
• 28 Louis DN, Perry A, Reifenberger G. , et al. The 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: a summary. Acta Neuropathol 2016; 131 (06) 803-820
• 29 Ranjan A, Rajshekhar V, Joseph T, Chandy MJ, Chandi SM. Nondiagnostic CT-guided stereotactic biopsies in a series of 407 cases: influence of CT morphology and operator experience. J Neurosurg 1993; 79 (06) 839-844
• 30 Riechert T, Mundinger F. Indications, technique and results of the stereotactic operations upon the hypophysis using radio-isotopes. J Nerv Ment Dis 1960; 13: 1-9
• 31 Leksell L. A stereotactic apparatus for intracerebral surgery. Acta Chir Scand 1949; 99: 229-233
• 32 Hecaen H, Talairach T, David M, Dell MB. Memories origineux: Coagulations limitées du thalamus dans les algies du syndrome thalamique. Rev Neurol (Paris) 1949; 81: 917-931
• 33 Riechert T, Wolff M. Über ein neues Zielgeraet zur intrakraniellen elektrischen Abteilung und Ausschaltung. Arch Psychiatr 1951; 186: 225-230
• 34 Bailey P, Stein SN. A stereotaxic apparatus for use on the human brain. Paper presented at: American Medical Association scientific exhibit; 1951; Atlantic City, NJ
• 35 Narabayashi H. Stereotaxic instrument for operation on the human basal ganglia. Psychiatr Neurol Jpn 1952; 54: 669-671
• 36 Ostertag CB, Mennel HD, Kiessling M. Stereotactic biopsy of brain tumors. Surg Neurol 1980; 14 (04) 275-283
• 37 Edner G. Stereotactic biopsy of intracranial space occupying lesions. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1981; 57 (3–4): 213-234
• 38 Sedan R, Peragut JC, Farnarier PH. Intra-encephalic stereotactic biopsies. Acta Neurochir Suppl (Wien) 1984; 33 (Suppl): 207-210
• 39 Mundinger F. CT stereotactic biopsy for optimizing the therapy of intracranial processes. Acta Neurochir Suppl (Wien) 1985; 35: 70-74
• 40 Davis DH, Kelly PJ, Marsh WR, Kall BA, Goerss SJ. Computer-assisted stereotactic biopsy of intracranial lesions. Appl Neurophysiol 1987; 50 (1-6): 172-177
• 41 Blaauw G, Braakman R. Pitfalls in diagnostic stereotactic brain surgery. Acta Neurochir Suppl (Wien) 1988; 42: 161-165
• 42 Thomas DG, Nouby RM. Experience in 300 cases of CT-directed stereotactic surgery for lesion biopsy and aspiration of haematoma. Br J Neurosurg 1989; 3 (03) 321-325
• 43 Wild AM, Xuereb JH, Marks PV, Gleave JR. Computerized tomographic stereotaxy in the management of 200 consecutive intracranial mass lesions. Analysis of indications, benefits and outcome. Br J Neurosurg 1990; 4 (05) 407-415
• 44 Kelly PJ. Stereotactic resection and its limitations in glial neoplasms. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 1992; 59 (1–4): 84-91
• 45 O'Neill KS, Dyer PV, Bell BA, Wilkins PR, Uttley D, Marsh HT. Is peroperative smear cytology necessary for CT-guided stereotaxic biopsy?. Br J Neurosurg 1992; 6 (05) 421-427
• 46 Heilbrun MP, Brockmeyer D, Sunderland P. Stereotactic surgery for mass lesions of the cranial vault. In: Apuzzo MLJ. , ed. Brain Surgery: Complications Avoidance and Management. New York, NY: Churchill-Livingston; 1993
• 47 Gomez H, Barnett GH, Estes ML, Palmer J, Magdinec M. Stereotactic and computer-assisted neurosurgery at the Cleveland Clinic: review of 501 consecutive cases. Cleve Clin J Med 1993; 60 (05) 399-410
• 48 Bernstein M, Parrent AG. Complications of CT-guided stereotactic biopsy of intra-axial brain lesions. J Neurosurg 1994; 81 (02) 165-168
• 49 Regis J, Bouillot P, Rouby-Volot F, Figarella-Branger D, Dufour H, Peanut JC. Pineal region tumors and the role of stereotactic biopsy: review of the mortality, morbidity, and diagnostic rates in 370 cases. Neurosurgery 1996; 39 (05) 907-912 ; discussion 912–914
• 50 Sawin PD, Hitchon PW, Follett KA, Torner JC. Computed imaging-assisted stereotactic brain biopsy: a risk analysis of 225 consecutive cases. Surg Neurol 1998; 49 (06) 640-649
• 51 Hall WA. The safety and efficacy of stereotactic biopsy for intracranial lesions. Cancer 1998; 82 (09) 1749-1755
• 52 Yu X, Liu Z, Tian Z. , et al. Stereotactic biopsy for intracranial space-occupying lesions: clinical analysis of 550 cases. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 2000; 75 (2–3): 103-108
• 53 Kim JE, Kim DG, Paek SH, Jung HW. Stereotactic biopsy for intracranial lesions: reliability and its impact on the planning of treatment. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2003; 145 (07) 547-554 ; discussion 554–555
• 54 Grossman R, Sadetzki S, Spiegelmann R, Ram Z. Haemorrhagic complications and the incidence of asymptomatic bleeding associated with stereotactic brain biopsies. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2005; 147 (06) 627-631 ; discussion 631
• 55 McGirt MJ, Woodworth GF, Coon AL. , et al. Independent predictors of morbidity after image-guided stereotactic brain biopsy: a risk assessment of 270 cases. J Neurosurg 2005; 102 (05) 897-901
• 56 Tilgner J, Herr M, Ostertag C, Volk B. Validation of intraoperative diagnoses using smear preparations from stereotactic brain biopsies: intraoperative versus final diagnosis—influence of clinical factors. Neurosurgery 2005; 56 (02) 257-265 ; discussion 257–265
• 57 Dammers R, Haitsma IK, Schouten JW, Kros JM, Avezaat CJ, Vincent AJ. Safety and efficacy of frameless and frame-based intracranial biopsy techniques. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2008; 150 (01) 23-29
• 58 Kongkham PN, Knifed E, Tamber MS, Bernstein M. Complications in 622 cases of frame-based stereotactic biopsy, a decreasing procedure. Can J Neurol Sci 2008; 35 (01) 79-84
• 59 Ersahin M, Karaaslan N, Gurbuz MS. , et al. The safety and diagnostic value of frame-based and CT-guided stereotactic brain biopsy technique. Turk Neurosurg 2011; 21 (04) 582-590
• 60 Eibach S, Weise L, Setzer M, Seifert V, Senft C. Intraoperative bleeding in stereotactic biopsies and its implication on postoperative management: can we predict CT findings?. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 2014; 92 (02) 80-85
• 61 Waters JD, Gonda DD, Reddy H, Kasper EM, Warnke PC, Chen CC. Diagnostic yield of stereotactic needle-biopsies of sub-cubic centimeter intracranial lesions. Surg Neurol Int 2013; 4 (03) (Suppl. 03) S176-S181
• 62 Kellermann SG, Hamisch CA, Rueß D. , et al. Stereotactic biopsy in elderly patients: risk assessment and impact on treatment decision. J Neurooncol 2017; 134 (02) 303-307
• 63 Hamisch C, Blau T, Klinger K. , et al. Feasibility, risk profile and diagnostic yield of stereotactic biopsy in children and young adults with brain lesions. Klin Padiatr 2017; 229 (03) 133-141
• 64 Tsermoulas G, Mukerji N, Borah AJ, Mitchell P, Ross N. Factors affecting diagnostic yield in needle biopsy for brain lesions. Br J Neurosurg 2013; 27 (02) 207-211
• 65 Jain D, Sharma MC, Sarkar C, Deb P, Gupta D, Mahapatra AK. Correlation of diagnostic yield of stereotactic brain biopsy with number of biopsy bits and site of the lesion. Brain Tumor Pathol 2006; 23 (02) 71-75
• 66 Kickingereder P, Willeit P, Simon T, Ruge MI. Diagnostic value and safety of stereotactic biopsy for brainstem tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 1480 cases. Neurosurgery 2013; 72 (06) 873-881 ; discussion 882, quiz 882
• 67 Samadani U, Stein S, Moonis G, Sonnad SS, Bonura P, Judy KD. Stereotactic biopsy of brain stem masses: decision analysis and literature review. Surg Neurol 2006; 66 (05) 484-490 ; discussion 491
• 68 Rajshekhar V, Moorthy RK. Status of stereotactic biopsy in children with brain stem masses: insights from a series of 106 patients. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 2010; 88 (06) 360-366
• 69 Puget S, Blauwblomme T, Grill J. Is biopsy safe in children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma?. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2012; 629-633
• 70 Soo TM, Bernstein M, Provias J, Tasker R, Lozano A, Guha A. Failed stereotactic biopsy in a series of 518 cases. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 1995; 64 (04) 183-196
• 71 Boëthius J, Collins VP, Edner G, Lewander R, Zajicek J. Stereotactic biopsies and computer tomography in gliomas. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1978; 40 (3–4): 223-232
• 72 Yu X, Liu Z, Tian Z. , et al. CT-guided stereotactic biopsy of deep brain lesions: report of 310 cases. Chin Med J (Engl) 1998; 111 (04) 361-363
• 73 Levivier M, Goldman S, Pirotte B. , et al. Diagnostic yield of stereotactic brain biopsy guided by positron emission tomography with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose. J Neurosurg 1995; 82 (03) 445-452
• 74 Massager N, David P, Goldman S. , et al. Combined magnetic resonance imaging- and positron emission tomography-guided stereotactic biopsy in brainstem mass lesions: diagnostic yield in a series of 30 patients. J Neurosurg 2000; 93 (06) 951-957
• 75 Pirotte B, Goldman S, Salzberg S. , et al. Combined positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for the planning of stereotactic brain biopsies in children: experience in 9 cases. Pediatr Neurosurg 2003; 38 (03) 146-155
• 76 Brainard JA, Prayson RA, Barnett GH. Frozen section evaluation of stereotactic brain biopsies: diagnostic yield at the stereotactic target position in 188 cases. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1997; 121 (05) 481-484
• 77 Bullard DE, Osborne D, Burger PC, Nashold Jr BS. Further experience utilizing the Gildenberg technique for computed tomography-guided stereotactic biopsies. Neurosurgery 1986; 19 (03) 386-391
• 78 Takey Y. Pathology of pituitary tumors and value of frozen section diagnosis. In: Tindall GT, Collins WF. , eds. Clinical Management of Pituitary Disorders. New York, NY: Raven Press; 1979
• 79 Eisenhardt L, Cushing H. Diagnosis of intracranial tumors by supravital technique. Am J Pathol 1930; 6 (05) 541-552 . 7
• 80 Badt B. Mikroskopische Schnelldiagnose bei hirnchirurgischen. Eingriffen. Zbl Neurochir 1937; 2: 123-129
• 81 Dammers R, Schouten JW, Haitsma IK, Vincent AJ, Kros JM, Dirven CM. Towards improving the safety and diagnostic yield of stereotactic biopsy in a single centre. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2010; 152 (11) 1915-1921
• 82 Chen T, Apuzzo M. Biopsy techniques and instruments. In: Gildenberg PL, Tasker R. , eds. Textbook of Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1998: 397-341