|LETTER TO EDITOR
|Year : 2019 | Volume
| Issue : 2 | Page : 101
Regarding “The Safety and Efficacy of Frame-Based Stereotactic Biopsy of Brain Lesion”
Sanjay Dhawan1, Tusharindra Lal2
1 Department of Neurosurgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
2 Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
|Date of Web Publication||20-Aug-2019|
Department of Neurosurgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
|How to cite this article:|
Dhawan S, Lal T. Regarding “The Safety and Efficacy of Frame-Based Stereotactic Biopsy of Brain Lesion”. MAMC J Med Sci 2019;5:101
|How to cite this URL:|
Dhawan S, Lal T. Regarding “The Safety and Efficacy of Frame-Based Stereotactic Biopsy of Brain Lesion”. MAMC J Med Sci [serial online] 2019 [cited 2021 Jun 13];5:101. Available from: https://www.mamcjms.in/text.asp?2019/5/2/101/264786
We read with great interest the article by Mohammed et al. titled “The safety and efficacy of frame-based stereotactic biopsy of brain lesion.”
The existing literature well regards frame-based stereotaxy as the gold standard procedure for brain biopsy due to its high precision.,, We recently published a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing frame-based and frameless intracranial stereotactic biopsy techniques. After critically and carefully reviewing this article, we would like to respectfully share a few concerns pertaining to this study.
Although the authors have reported complications stratified by time, anatomical location, and type of anesthesia, the authors should also report if there were any neurological deficits as a result of the procedure with further stratification with respect to the type of deficit, that is, transient vs. permanent. It is quite important for the readers to know what complications occurred in the majority in each of deeper and superficial lesions groups. In addition, comparison between the patient groups with and without complications in terms of duration of hospital stay with a specific mention of the outlier complications would have been useful.
The authors have not mentioned what statistical program was used in the analysis. It would be interesting to see the results of a multivariable logistic regression model to determine whether the duration of hospital stay depends on one or more of the factors: age of the patient, the type of anesthesia administered (local vs. general) or the type of complication (hemorrhage, neurological deficit, or others). A subgroup analysis in terms of diagnostic yield stratified by patient age groups (pediatric vs. adults) and anesthesia administered (local vs. general) should also be reported.
We appreciate the authors for reporting their experience with frame-based intracranial stereotactic biopsy technique and validation of the existing literature.
Financial support and sponsorship
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References|| |
Mohammed WH, Obaid AR, Al-Shalaji AK, Hoz SS, Shakir BK, Moscote-Salazar LR. The safety and efficacy of frame-based stereotactic biopsy of brain lesion. MAMC J Med Sci 2018;4:121-7. [Full text]
Bradac O, Steklacova A, Nebrenska K, Vrana J, de Lacy P, Benes V. Accuracy of VarioGuide frameless stereotactic system against frame-based stereotaxy: prospective, randomized, single-center study. World Neurosurg 2017;104:831-40.
Woodworth GF, McGirt MJ, Samdani A, Garonzik I, Olivi A, Weingart JD. Frameless image-guided stereotactic brain biopsy procedure: diagnostic yield, surgical morbidity, and comparison with the frame-based technique. J Neurosurg 2006;104:233-7.
Hall WA. The safety and efficacy of stereotactic biopsy for intracranial lesions. Cancer 1998;82:1749-55.
Dhawan S, He Y, Bartek J Jr, Alattar AA, Chen CC. Comparison of frame-based versus frameless intracranial stereotactic biopsy: systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg 2019. pii:S1878-8750(19) 31007-1. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.04.016