FreeSurfer and 3D Slicer-Assisted SEEG Implantation for Drug-Resistant Epilepsy

Our study aimed to develop an approach to improve the speed and resolution of cerebral-hemisphere and lesion modeling and evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of robot-assisted surgical planning software.

We applied both conventional robot planning software (method 1) and open-source auxiliary software (FreeSurfer and 3D Slicer; method 2) to model the brain and lesions in 19 patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. The patients' mean age at implantation was 21.4 years (range, 6-52 years). Each patient received an average of 12 electrodes (range, 9-16) between May and November 2021. The electrode-implantation plan was designed based on the models established using the two methods. We statistically analyzed and compared the duration of designing the models and planning the implantation using these two methods and performed the surgeries with the implantation plan designed using the auxiliary software.

A significantly longer time was needed to reconstruct a cerebral-hemisphere model using method 1 (mean, 206 s) than using method 2 (mean, 20 s) (p < 0.05). Both methods identified a mean of 1.4 lesions (range, 1-5) in each patient. Overall, using method 1 required longer (mean, 130 s; range, 48-436) than using method 2 (mean, 68.1 s; range, 50-104; p < 0.05). In addition, the clarity of the model based on method 1 was lower than that based on method 2. To devise an electrode-implantation plan, it took 9.1-25.5 min (mean, 16) and 6.6-14.8 min (mean, 10.2) based on methods 1 and 2, respectively (p < 0.05). The average target point error of 231 electrodes amounted to 1.90 mm ± 0.37 mm (range, 0.33-3.61 mm). The average entry point error was 0.89 ± 0.26 mm (range, 0.17-1.67 mm). None of the patients presented with intracranial hemorrhage or infection, and no other serious complications were observed.

FreeSurfer and 3D Slicer-assisted SEEG implantation is an excellent approach to enhance modeling speed and resolution, shorten the electrode-implantation planning time, and boost the efficiency of clinical work. These well-known, trusted open-source programs do not have explicitly restricted licenses. These tools, therefore, seem well suited for clinical-research applications under the premise of approval by an ethics committee, informed consent of the patient, and clinical judgment of the surgeon.