4.6 Article

Intraoperative multi-exposure speckle imaging of cerebral blood flow

Journal

JOURNAL OF CEREBRAL BLOOD FLOW AND METABOLISM
Volume 37, Issue 9, Pages 3097-3109

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0271678X16686987

Keywords

Cerebral blood flow; intraoperative imaging; laser speckle contrast imaging; multi-exposure speckle imaging; neurosurgery

Funding

  1. Coulter Foundation
  2. National Institutes of Health [EB011556, NS078791, NS082518, EB007507]
  3. American Heart Association [14EIA8970041]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Multiple studies have demonstrated that laser speckle contrast imaging (LSCI) has high potential to be a valuable cerebral blood flow monitoring technique during neurosurgery. However, the quantitative accuracy and sensitivity of LSCI is limited, and highly dependent on the exposure time. An extension to LSCI called multi-exposure speckle imaging (MESI) overcomes these limitations, and was evaluated intraoperatively in patients undergoing brain tumor resection. This clinical study (n = 8) recorded multiple exposure times from the same cortical tissue area spanning 0.5-20 ms, and evaluated images individually as single-exposure LSCI and jointly using the MESI model. This study demonstrated that the MESI estimates provided the broadest flow sensitivity for sampling the flow magnitude in the human brain, closely followed by the shorter exposure times. Conservation of flow analysis on vascular bifurcations was used to validate physiological accuracy, with highly conserved flow estimates (<10%) from both MESI and 1 ms LSCI (n = 14 branches). The MESI model had high goodness-of-fit with proper image calibration and acquisition, and was used to monitor blood flow changes after tissue cautery. Results from this study demonstrate that intraoperative MESI can be performed with high quantitative accuracy and sensitivity for cerebral blood flow monitoring.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available