Neuronavigation using pre-operative imaging data for neurosurgical guidance is a ubiquitous tool for the planning and resection of oncologic brain disease. These systems are rendered unreliable when brain shift invalidates the patient-image registration. Our previous review in 2015, Brain shift in neuronavigation of brain tumours: A review offered a new taxonomy, classification system, and a historical perspective on the causes, measurement, and pre- and intra-operative compensation of this phenomenon. Here we present an updated review using the same taxonomy and framework, focused on the developments of intra-operative ultrasound-based brain shift research from 2015 to the present (2020). The review was performed using PubMed to identify articles since 2015 with the specific words and phrases: “Brain shift” AND “Ultrasound”. Since 2015, the rate of publication of intra-operative ultrasound based articles in the context of brain shift has increased from 2–3 per year to 8–10 per year. This efficient and low-cost technology and increasing comfort among clinicians and researchers have allowed unique avenues of development. Since 2015, there has been a trend towards more mathematical advancements in the field which is often validated on publicly available datasets from early intra-operative ultrasound research, and may not give a just representation to the intra-operative imaging landscape in modern image-guided neurosurgery. Focus on vessel-based registration and virtual and augmented reality paradigms have seen traction, offering new perspectives to overcome some of the different pitfalls of ultrasound based technologies. Unfortunately, clinical adaptation and evaluation has not seen as significant of a publication boost. Brain shift continues to be a highly prevalent pitfall in maintaining accuracy throughout oncologic neurosurgical intervention and continues to be an area of active research. Intra-operative ultrasound continues to show promise as an effective, efficient, and low-cost solution for intra-operative accuracy management. A major drawback of the current research landscape is that mathematical tool validation based on retrospective data outpaces prospective clinical evaluations decreasing the strength of the evidence. The need for newer and more publicly available clinical datasets will be instrumental in more reliable validation of these methods that reflect the modern intra-operative imaging in these procedures.

We present our work investigating the feasibility of combining intraoperative ultrasound for brain shift correction and augmented reality (AR) visualization for intraoperative interpretation of patient-specific models in image-guided neurosurgery (IGNS) of brain tumors. We combine two imaging technologies for image-guided brain tumor neurosurgery. Throughout surgical interventions, AR was used to assess different surgical strategies using three-dimensional (3-D) patient-specific models of the patient’s cortex, vasculature, and lesion. Ultrasound imaging was acquired intraoperatively, and preoperative images and models were registered to the intraoperative data. The quality and reliability of the AR views were evaluated with both qualitative and quantitative metrics. A pilot study of eight patients demonstrates the feasible combination of these two technologies and their complementary features. In each case, the AR visualizations enabled the surgeon to accurately visualize the anatomy and pathology of interest for an extended period of the intervention. Inaccuracies associated with misregistration, brain shift, and AR were improved in all cases. These results demonstrate the potential of combining ultrasound-based registration with AR to become a useful tool for neurosurgeons to improve intraoperative patient-specific planning by improving the understanding of complex 3-D medical imaging data and prolonging the reliable use of IGNS.

Newer versions of the commercial Medtronic StealthStation allow the use of only 8 landmark pairs for patient-to-image registration as opposed to 9 landmarks in older systems. The choice of which landmark pair to drop in these newer systems can have an effect on the quality of the patient-to-image registration. To investigate 4 landmark registration protocols based on 8 landmark pairs and compare the resulting registration accuracy with a 9-landmark protocol. Four different protocols were tested on both phantoms and patients. Two of the protocols involved using 4 ear landmarks and 4 facial landmarks and the other 2 involved using 3 ear landmarks and 5 facial landmarks. Both the fiducial registration error and target registration error were evaluated for each of the different protocols to determine any difference between them and the 9-landmark protocol. No difference in fiducial registration error was found between any of the 8-landmark protocols and the 9-landmark protocol. A significant decrease (P < .05) in target registration error was found when using a protocol based on 4 ear landmarks and 4 facial landmarks compared with the other protocols based on 3 ear landmarks. When using 8 landmarks to perform the patient-to-image registration, the protocol using 4 ear landmarks and 4 facial landmarks greatly outperformed the other 8-landmark protocols and 9-landmark protocol, resulting in the lowest target registration error.