Article Text

PDF
Review
A review and comparison of three neuronavigation systems for minimally invasive intracerebral hemorrhage evacuation
  1. Alexander G Chartrain1,
  2. Christopher P Kellner1,
  3. Kyle M Fargen2,
  4. Alejandro M Spiotta3,
  5. David A Chesler4,
  6. David Fiorella4,
  7. J Mocco1
  1. 1Department of Neurosurgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, New York, USA
  2. 2Department of Neurological Surgery, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA
  3. 3Department of Neurosurgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA
  4. 4Department of Neurosurgery, Stony Brook University Medical Center, Stony Brook, New York, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Christopher P Kellner, Department of Neurosurgery, The Mount Sinai Hospital Klingenstein Clinical Center, New York 10029; christopher.kellner{at}mountsinai.org

Abstract

Advances in stereotactic navigation technology have helped to improve the ease, reliability, and workflow of neurosurgical intraoperative navigation. These advances have also allowed novel, minimally invasive neurosurgical techniques to emerge. Minimally invasive techniques for intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) evacuation, including endoscopic evacuation and passive catheter drainage, are notable examples, and as these gain support in the literature and their use expands, stereotactic navigation will take on an increasingly important and central role. Each neurosurgical navigation system has unique characteristics. Operators may find that certain aspects are more important than others, depending on the environment in which the evacuation is performed and operator preferences. This review will describe the characteristics of three popular stereotactic neuronavigation systems and compare their advantages and disadvantages as they relate to minimally invasive ICH evacuation.

  • intracerebral hemorrhage
  • neuroendoscopy
  • neuronavigation
  • stereotaxy
View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Contributors All authors contributed to the manuscript through manuscript composition and critical review. All authors provided final approval for publication.

  • Funding This paper was supported in part by a grant from Arminio and Lucyna Fraga.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Obtained.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.