Barbara Carl

Prof. Dr. Barbara Carl

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

17Years (2010-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
5 April 2019 in European Spine Journal
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
BCBarbara Carl
Barbara Carl
Miriam H. A. BoppMiriam H. A. Bopp
Miriam H. A. Bopp
BSBenjamin Saß
Benjamin Saß
BVBenjamin Voellger
Benjamin Voellger
Christopher NimskyChristopher Nimsky
Christopher Nimsky

12 July 2019 in Acta Neurochirurgica
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
BCBarbara Carl
Barbara Carl
Miriam H. A. BoppMiriam H. A. Bopp
Miriam H. A. Bopp
BSBenjamin Saß
Benjamin Saß
Mirza PojskicMirza Pojskic
Mirza Pojskic
Christopher NimskyChristopher Nimsky
Christopher Nimsky

1 September 2021 in Brain Stimulation
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
JWJosefine Waldthaler
Josefine Waldthaler
MBMiriam Bopp
Miriam Bopp
NKNele Kühn
Nele Kühn
BBBugrahan Bacara
Bugrahan Bacara
MKMerle Keuler
Merle Keuler
DPDavid J. Pedrosa
David J. Pedrosa
The need for imaging-guided optimization of Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) parameters is increasing with recent developments of sophisticated lead designs offering highly individualized, but time-consuming and complex programming. The objective of this study was to compare changes in motor symptoms of Parkinson's Disease (PD) and the corresponding volume of the electrostatic field (VEsF) achieved by DBS programming using GUIDE XT™, a commercially available software for visualization of DBS leads within the patient-specific anatomy from fusions of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and postoperative computed tomography (CT) scans, versus standard-of-care clinical programming. Clinical evaluation was performed to identify the optimal set of parameters based on clinical effects in 29 patients with PD and bilateral directional leads for Subthalamic Nucleus (STN) DBS. A second DBS program was generated in GUIDE XT™ based on a VEsF optimally located within the dorsolateral STN. Reduction of motor symptoms (Movement Disorders Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale, MDS-UPDRS) and the overlap of the corresponding VEsF of both programs were compared. Clinical and imaging-guided programming resulted in a significant reduction in the MDS-UPDRS scores compared to off-state. Motor symptom control with GUIDE XT™-derived DBS program was non-inferior to standard clinical programming. The overlap of the two VEsF did not correlate with the difference in motor symptom reduction by the programs. Imaging-guided programming of directional DBS leads using GUIDE XT™ is possible without computational background and leads to non-inferior motor symptom control compared with clinical programming. DBS programs based on patient-specific imaging data may thus serve as starting point for clinical testing and may promote more efficient DBS programming.

18 October 2016 in Epilepsia
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
LKLena‐Marie Kortland
Lena‐Marie Kortland
AAAnne Alfter
Anne Alfter
OBOliver Bähr
Oliver Bähr
BCBarbara Carl
Barbara Carl
RDRichard Dodel
Richard Dodel
ASAdam Strzelczyk
Adam Strzelczyk
Summary: Objective: To provide first data on inpatient costs and cost‐driving factors due to nonrefractory status epilepticus (NSE), refractory status epilepticus (RSE), and super‐refractory status epilepticus (SRSE).Methods: In 2013 and 2014, all adult patients treated due to status epilepticus (SE) at the university hospitals in Frankfurt, Greifswald, and Marburg were analyzed for healthcare utilization.Results: We evaluated 341 admissions in 316 patients (65.7 ± [standard deviation]18.2 years; 135 male) treated for SE. Mean costs of hospital treatment were €14,946 (median €5,278, range €776–€152,911, €787 per treatment day) per patient per admission, with a mean length of stay (LOS) of 19.0 days (median 14.0, range 1–118). Course of SE had a significant impact on mean costs, with €8,314 in NSE (n = 137, median €4,597, €687 per treatment day, 22.3% of total inpatient costs due to SE), €13,399 in RSE (n = 171, median €7,203, €638/day, 45.0% of total costs, p < 0.001), and €50,488 in SRSE (n = 33, median €46,223, €1,365/day, 32.7% of total costs, p < 0.001). Independent cost‐driving factors were SRSE, ventilation, and LOS of >14 days. Overall mortality at discharge was 14.4% and significantly higher in RSE/SRSE (20.1%) than in NSE (5.8%).Significance: Acute treatment of SE, and particularly SRSE and ventilation, are associated with high hospital costs and prolonged LOS. Extrapolation to the whole of Germany indicates that SE causes hospital costs of >€200 million per year. Along with the demographic change, incidence of SE will increase and costs for hospital treatment and sequelae of SE will rise.

1 April 2020 in Global Spine Journal
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
BCBarbara Carl
Barbara Carl
MBMiriam Bopp
Miriam Bopp
BSBenjamin Saß
Benjamin Saß
Mirza PojskicMirza Pojskic
Mirza Pojskic
BVBenjamin Voellger
Benjamin Voellger
Christopher NimskyChristopher Nimsky
Christopher Nimsky
Study Design: A prospective, case-based, observational study. Objectives: To investigate how microscope-based augmented reality (AR) support can be utilized in various types of spine surgery. Methods: In 42 spinal procedures (12 intra- and 8 extradural tumors, 7 other intradural lesions, 11 degenerative cases, 2 infections, and 2 deformities) AR was implemented using operating microscope head-up displays (HUDs). Intraoperative low-dose computed tomography was used for automatic registration. Nonlinear image registration was applied to integrate multimodality preoperative images. Target and risk structures displayed by AR were defined in preoperative images by automatic anatomical mapping and additional manual segmentation. Results: AR could be successfully applied in all 42 cases. Low-dose protocols ensured a low radiation exposure for registration scanning (effective dose cervical 0.29 ± 0.17 mSv, thoracic 3.40 ± 2.38 mSv, lumbar 3.05 ± 0.89 mSv). A low registration error (0.87 ± 0.28 mm) resulted in a reliable AR representation with a close matching of visualized objects and reality, distinctly supporting anatomical orientation in the surgical field. Flexible AR visualization applying either the microscope HUD or video superimposition, including the ability to selectively activate objects of interest, as well as different display modes allowed a smooth integration in the surgical workflow, without disturbing the actual procedure. On average, 7.1 ± 4.6 objects were displayed visualizing target and risk structures reliably. Conclusions: Microscope-based AR can be applied successfully to various kinds of spinal procedures. AR improves anatomical orientation in the surgical field supporting the surgeon, as well as it offers a potential tool for education.

1 August 2019 in World Neurosurgery
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
BCBarbara Carl
Barbara Carl
Miriam H. A. BoppMiriam H. A. Bopp
Miriam H. A. Bopp
BSBenjamin Saß
Benjamin Saß
Christopher NimskyChristopher Nimsky
Christopher Nimsky