Navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation

Ruohonen, J.; Karhu, Jari

doi:10.1016/j.neucli.2010.01.006

Cited by 348 publications

(263 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

253

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, the intracranial stimulation sites were visualized over the 3D reconstruction of the patient's brain and were saved for later examination. 22,43,44 By placing the coil perpendicular to the skull we obtained maximum field induction, and the induced electric field had a minimum cortical field strength of 55 V/m.…”

Section: Tms Language Mapping Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 94%

Impairment of preoperative language mapping by lesion location: a functional magnetic resonance imaging, navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation, and direct cortical stimulation study

Ille¹,

Sollmann²,

Hauck³

et al. 2015

JNS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was introduced for stimulating the human motor cortex by Barker et al. in 1985, the method has become more sophisticated and was extensively refined.1 PascualLeone and colleagues introduced the term "virtual lesion" and were already in 1991 able to induce speech arrests and counting errors by the use of rapid-rate TMS. 35,36 In the late 1990s and early 2000s, a combination of TMS with optically tracked stereotactic navigation systems was established, whereby it was possible to visualize the stimulation sites via the 3D reconstructed MRI data of the patient's brain. 31,37 Thus, the door to the operating theater was opened since the recorded and analyzed stimulation sites could be used for presurgical planning and data could be abbreviatioNs BOLD = blood-oxygen-level dependent; CPS = cortical parcellation system; DCS = direct cortical stimulation; DTI-FT = diffusion tensor imaging fiber tracking; fMRI = functional MRI; NPV = negative predictive value; PPV = positive predictive value; PTI = picture-to-trigger interval; RMT = resting motor threshold; ROC = receiver operating characteristic; rTMS = repetitive navigated TMS; TMS = transcranial magnetic stimulation. (rTMS) is increasingly used and has already replaced functional MRI (fMRI) in some institutions for preoperative mapping of neurosurgical patients. Yet some factors affect the concordance of both methods with direct cortical stimulation (DCS), most likely by lesions affecting cortical oxygenation levels. Therefore, the impairment of the accuracy of rTMS and fMRI was analyzed and compared with DCS during awake surgery in patients with intraparenchymal lesions. methods Language mapping was performed by DCS, rTMS, and fMRI using an object-naming task in 27 patients with left-sided perisylvian lesions, and the induced language errors of each method were assigned to the cortical parcellation system. Subsequently, the receiver operating characteristics were calculated for rTMS and fMRI and compared with DCS as ground truth for regions with (w/) and without (w/o) the lesion in the mapped regions. results The w/ subgroup revealed a sensitivity of 100% (w/o 100%), a specificity of 8% (w/o 5%), a positive predictive value of 34% (w/o: 53%), and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 100% (w/o: 100%) for the comparison of rTMS versus DCS. Findings for the comparison of fMRI versus DCS within the w/ subgroup revealed a sensitivity of 32% (w/o: 62%), a specificity of 88% (w/o: 60%), a positive predictive value of 56% (w/o: 62%), and a NPV of 73% (w/o: 60%). coNclusioNs Although strengths and weaknesses exist for both rTMS and fMRI, the results show that rTMS is less affected by a brain lesion than fMRI, especially when performing mapping of language-negative cortical regions based on sensitivity and NPV.

show abstract

Section: Tms Language Mapping Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 94%

Impairment of preoperative language mapping by lesion location: a functional magnetic resonance imaging, navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation, and direct cortical stimulation study

Ille¹,

Sollmann²,

Hauck³

et al. 2015

JNS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…51 The induced electric field in the brain was visualized over the 3D reconstruction, and the intracranial stimulation points were saved for later examination. 29,58,59 After the coregistration, the individual patient's resting motor threshold (RMT) was defined by motor mapping of the cortical representation of the contralateral abductor pollicis brevis muscle, as published before. 34 This RMT was then used as a basic value for the rTMS mapping procedure, using an object-naming task, consisting of 131 colored pictures of common objects.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Combined noninvasive language mapping by navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation and functional MRI and its comparison with direct cortical stimulation

Ille

Sollmann

Hauck

et al. 2015

JNS

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

T he resection of tumors within or adjacent to language-eloquent brain regions is still a neurosurgical quest, and a profound presurgical workup is crucial to achieving the best functional and oncological result. 6,71 Today, the most precise way to localize individual language-eloquent regions is direct cortical stimulation (DCS) during awake craniotomy. 9,12,26,44,45,54,62,65,74 Using only DCS, however, we cannot provide the longitudinal abbreviatioNs BOLD = blood oxygen level-dependent; CPS = cortical parcellation system; DCS direct cortical stimulation; ER = error rate; ERT error rate threshold; fMRI = functional MRI; IPI = interpicture interval; NPV = negative predictive value; nTMS navigated TMS; PPV = positive predictive value; PTI = picture-to-trigger interval; RMT = resting motor threshold; ROC = receiver operating characteristic; rTMS repetitive navigated TMS; TMS = transcranial magnetic stimulation. obJect Repetitive navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is now increasingly used for preoperative language mapping in patients with lesions in language-related areas of the brain. Yet its correlation with intraoperative direct cortical stimulation (DCS) has to be improved. To increase rTMS's specificity and positive predictive value, the authors aim to provide thresholds for rTMS's positive language areas. Moreover, they propose a protocol for combining rTMS with functional MRI (fMRI) to combine the strength of both methods. methods The authors performed multimodal language mapping in 35 patients with left-sided perisylvian lesions by using rTMS, fMRI, and DCS. The rTMS mappings were conducted with a picture-to-trigger interval (PTI, time between stimulus presentation and stimulation onset) of either 0 or 300 msec. The error rates (ERs; that is, the number of errors per number of stimulations) were calculated for each region of the cortical parcellation system (CPS). Subsequently, the rTMS mappings were analyzed through different error rate thresholds (ERT; that is, the ER at which a CPS region was defined as language positive in terms of rTMS), and the 2-out-of-3 rule (a stimulation site was defined as language positive in terms of rTMS if at least 2 out of 3 stimulations caused an error). As a second step, the authors combined the results of fMRI and rTMS in a predefined protocol of combined noninvasive mapping. To validate this noninvasive protocol, they correlated its results to DCS during awake surgery. results The analysis by different rTMS ERTs obtained the highest correlation regarding sensitivity and a low rate of false positives for the ERTs of 15%, 20%, 25%, and the 2-out-of-3 rule. However, when comparing the combined fMRI and rTMS results with DCS, the authors observed an overall specificity of 83%, a positive predictive value of 51%, a sensitivity of 98%, and a negative predictive value of 95%. coNclusioNs In comparison with fMRI, rTMS is a more sensitive but less specific tool for preoperative language mapping than DCS. Moreover, rTMS is most reliable when using ERTs of 15%, 20...

show abstract

“…Furthermore, we have recently conducted a meta-analysis on the integrity of blinding in high-frequency rTMS trials in MD and have showed that after an average of 13 rTMS sessions, 52 and 59% of subjects receiving active and sham rTMS (n ¼ 396), respectively, were able to correctly guess their treatment allocation (p ¼ 0.58) (Berlim et al, submitted-b). Third, the most commonly used strategy for locating the DLPFC (ie, the '5-cm method') has been recently criticized for its inaccuracy (Bradfield et al, 2012;Fitzgerald et al, 2009a;Fitzgerald et al, 2009b;Herbsman et al, 2009;Rusjan et al, 2010), and future studies might benefit from neuronavigation approaches (Ruohonen and Karhu, 2010; Schonfeldt-Lecuona et al, 2010). Fourth, we have only examined the efficacy of LF-rTMS at study end, and thus could not estimate the stability of its medium-to long-term antidepressant effects and/or its cost-effectiveness.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinically Meaningful Efficacy and Acceptability of Low-Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) for Treating Primary Major Depression: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Double-Blind and Sham-Controlled Trials

Berlim

Eynde

Daskalakis

2012

Neuropsychopharmacol

251

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clinical trials on low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (LF-rTMS) over the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex have yielded conflicting evidence concerning its overall efficacy for treating major depression (MD). As this may have been the result of limited statistical power of individual trials, we have carried the present systematic review and meta-analysis to examine this issue. We searched the literature for English language randomized, double-blind and sham-controlled trials (RCTs) on LF-rTMS for treating MD from 1995 through July 2012 using EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SCOPUS, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, and from October 2008 until July 2012 using MEDLINE. The main outcome measures were response and remission rates as well as overall dropout rates at study end. We used a random-effects model, odds ratios (ORs) and number needed to treat (NNT). Data were obtained from eight RCTs, totaling 263 subjects with MD. After an average of 12.6±3.9 rTMS sessions, 38.2% (50/131) and 15.1% (20/132) of subjects receiving active LF-rTMS and sham rTMS were classified as responders (OR ¼ 3.35; 95% CI ¼ 1.4-8.02; p ¼ 0.007). Also, 34.6% (35/101) and 9.7% (10/103) of subjects receiving active LF-rTMS and sham rTMS were classified as remitters (OR ¼ 4.76; 95% CI ¼ 2.13-10.64; po0.0001). The associated NNT for both response and remission rates was 5. Sensitivity analyses have shown that protocols delivering 41200 magnetic pulses in total as well as those offering rTMS as a monotherapy for MD were associated with higher rates of response to treatment. No differences on mean baseline depression scores and dropout rates for active and sham rTMS groups were found. Finally, the risk of publication bias was low. In conclusion, LF-rTMS is a promising treatment for MD, as it provides clinically meaningful benefits that are comparable to those of standard antidepressants and high-frequency rTMS. Furthermore, LF-rTMS seems to be an acceptable intervention for depressed subjects.

show abstract

Navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation

Cited by 348 publications

References 32 publications

Impairment of preoperative language mapping by lesion location: a functional magnetic resonance imaging, navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation, and direct cortical stimulation study

Impairment of preoperative language mapping by lesion location: a functional magnetic resonance imaging, navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation, and direct cortical stimulation study

Combined noninvasive language mapping by navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation and functional MRI and its comparison with direct cortical stimulation

Clinically Meaningful Efficacy and Acceptability of Low-Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) for Treating Primary Major Depression: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Double-Blind and Sham-Controlled Trials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About