利用新型外窥镜评估5-氨基乙酰丙酸诱导的荧光及其在胶质瘤手术中的可行性:技术说明。

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Zeynep Özdemir, Eric Suero Molina, Anna Walke, Michael Schwake, Nils Warneke, Michael Müther, Walter Stummer
{"title":"利用新型外窥镜评估5-氨基乙酰丙酸诱导的荧光及其在胶质瘤手术中的可行性:技术说明。","authors":"Zeynep Özdemir, Eric Suero Molina, Anna Walke, Michael Schwake, Nils Warneke, Michael Müther, Walter Stummer","doi":"10.3171/2024.12.JNS242790","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Filter specifications for visualizing 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA) tumor fluorescence are incorporated in neurosurgical wide-field microscopes. Novel exoscopes offer modified visualization technologies that should be comparable to older systems to prevent over- or underresection. In this technical note, the authors compare the fluorescence visualization technologies of three exoscopes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Images of 73 tissue samples with heterogeneous fluorescence signals were acquired using the Aeos, ORBEYE, and Kinevo exoscope. Fluorescent areas as determined by six raters were calculated and compared with the gold standard, i.e., BLUE 400. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated to assess the reliability of the results. Protoporphyrin IX (PpIX) decay under continuous blue-light illumination was determined to assess photobleaching.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The extent of fluorescence was significantly larger under the Aeos. There was no significant difference using the ORBEYE and the Kinevo exoscope. ICCs showed excellent (Kinevo exoscope and Aeos) and good (ORBEYE) reliabilities. The Aeos had the fastest PpIX decay rate.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The ORBEYE and the Kinevo exoscope are safe alternatives to the gold standard. The Aeos seems to be more sensitive regarding fluorescence visualization; however, it remains unclear whether this is at the expense of specificity. The photobleaching effect is stronger in novel exoscopes.</p>","PeriodicalId":16505,"journal":{"name":"Journal of neurosurgery","volume":" ","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of 5-aminolevulinic acid-induced fluorescence using novel exoscopes and their feasibility in glioma surgery: technical note.\",\"authors\":\"Zeynep Özdemir, Eric Suero Molina, Anna Walke, Michael Schwake, Nils Warneke, Michael Müther, Walter Stummer\",\"doi\":\"10.3171/2024.12.JNS242790\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Filter specifications for visualizing 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA) tumor fluorescence are incorporated in neurosurgical wide-field microscopes. Novel exoscopes offer modified visualization technologies that should be comparable to older systems to prevent over- or underresection. In this technical note, the authors compare the fluorescence visualization technologies of three exoscopes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Images of 73 tissue samples with heterogeneous fluorescence signals were acquired using the Aeos, ORBEYE, and Kinevo exoscope. Fluorescent areas as determined by six raters were calculated and compared with the gold standard, i.e., BLUE 400. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated to assess the reliability of the results. Protoporphyrin IX (PpIX) decay under continuous blue-light illumination was determined to assess photobleaching.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The extent of fluorescence was significantly larger under the Aeos. There was no significant difference using the ORBEYE and the Kinevo exoscope. ICCs showed excellent (Kinevo exoscope and Aeos) and good (ORBEYE) reliabilities. The Aeos had the fastest PpIX decay rate.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The ORBEYE and the Kinevo exoscope are safe alternatives to the gold standard. The Aeos seems to be more sensitive regarding fluorescence visualization; however, it remains unclear whether this is at the expense of specificity. The photobleaching effect is stronger in novel exoscopes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16505,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of neurosurgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-8\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of neurosurgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3171/2024.12.JNS242790\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of neurosurgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3171/2024.12.JNS242790","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:神经外科宽视场显微镜采用了用于观察 5- 氨基乙酰丙酸(5-ALA)肿瘤荧光的滤光片规格。新型外显微镜提供了经过改进的可视化技术,这些技术应与旧系统相当,以防止过度或不足切除。在本技术说明中,作者比较了三种外显微镜的荧光可视化技术:方法:使用 Aeos、ORBEYE 和 Kinevo 外窥镜采集了 73 个组织样本的异质荧光信号图像。计算由六位评分者确定的荧光区域,并与金标准(即 BLUE 400)进行比较。计算类内相关系数(ICC)以评估结果的可靠性。在连续蓝光照射下测定原卟啉 IX(PpIX)的衰减,以评估光漂白:结果:Aeos 下的荧光范围明显更大。使用 ORBEYE 和 Kinevo 外窥镜没有明显差异。ICCs 显示了极佳的可靠性(Kinevo 外视镜和 Aeos)和良好的可靠性(ORBEYE)。Aeos的PpIX衰减速度最快:结论:ORBEYE 和 Kinevo 外窥镜是金标准的安全替代品。Aeos在荧光显像方面似乎更灵敏,但是否以牺牲特异性为代价仍不清楚。新型外窥镜的光漂白效应更强。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessment of 5-aminolevulinic acid-induced fluorescence using novel exoscopes and their feasibility in glioma surgery: technical note.

Objective: Filter specifications for visualizing 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA) tumor fluorescence are incorporated in neurosurgical wide-field microscopes. Novel exoscopes offer modified visualization technologies that should be comparable to older systems to prevent over- or underresection. In this technical note, the authors compare the fluorescence visualization technologies of three exoscopes.

Methods: Images of 73 tissue samples with heterogeneous fluorescence signals were acquired using the Aeos, ORBEYE, and Kinevo exoscope. Fluorescent areas as determined by six raters were calculated and compared with the gold standard, i.e., BLUE 400. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated to assess the reliability of the results. Protoporphyrin IX (PpIX) decay under continuous blue-light illumination was determined to assess photobleaching.

Results: The extent of fluorescence was significantly larger under the Aeos. There was no significant difference using the ORBEYE and the Kinevo exoscope. ICCs showed excellent (Kinevo exoscope and Aeos) and good (ORBEYE) reliabilities. The Aeos had the fastest PpIX decay rate.

Conclusions: The ORBEYE and the Kinevo exoscope are safe alternatives to the gold standard. The Aeos seems to be more sensitive regarding fluorescence visualization; however, it remains unclear whether this is at the expense of specificity. The photobleaching effect is stronger in novel exoscopes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of neurosurgery
Journal of neurosurgery 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
7.30%
发文量
1003
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Neurosurgery, Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics, and Neurosurgical Focus are devoted to the publication of original works relating primarily to neurosurgery, including studies in clinical neurophysiology, organic neurology, ophthalmology, radiology, pathology, and molecular biology. The Editors and Editorial Boards encourage submission of clinical and laboratory studies. Other manuscripts accepted for review include technical notes on instruments or equipment that are innovative or useful to clinicians and researchers in the field of neuroscience; papers describing unusual cases; manuscripts on historical persons or events related to neurosurgery; and in Neurosurgical Focus, occasional reviews. Letters to the Editor commenting on articles recently published in the Journal of Neurosurgery, Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, and Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics are welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信