Acta Neurochirurgica

, 150:23 | Cite as

Safety and efficacy of frameless and frame-based intracranial biopsy techniques

  • R. DammersEmail author
  • I. K. Haitsma
  • J. W. Schouten
  • J. M. Kros
  • C. J. J. Avezaat
  • A. J. P. E. Vincent
Clinical Article


Background. Frameless stereotaxy or neuronavigation has evolved into a feasible technology to acquire intracaranial biopsies with good accuracy and little mortality. However, few studies have evaluated the diagnostic yield, morbidity, and mortality of this technique as compared to the established standard of frame-based stereotactic brain biopsy. We report our experience of a large number of procedures performed with one or other technique.

Patients and methods. We retrospectively assessed 465 consecutive biopsies done over a ten-year time span; Data from 391 biopsies (227 frame-based and 164 frameless) were available for analysis. Patient demographics, peri-operative characteristics, and histological diagnosis were reviewed and then information was analysed to identify factors associated with the biopsy not yielding a diagnosis and of it being followed by death.

Results. On average, nine tissue samples were taken with either stereotaxy technique. Overall, the biopsy led to a diagnosis on 89.4% of occasions. No differences were found between the two biopsy procedures. In a multiple regression analysis, it was found that left-sided lesions were less likely to result in a non-diagnostic tissue sample (p = 0.023), and cerebellar lesions showed a high risk of negative histology (p = 0.006). Postoperative complications were seen after 12.1% of biopsies, including 15 symptomatic haemorrhages (3.8%). There was not a difference between the rates of complication after either a frame-based or a frameless biopsy. Overall, peri-operative complications (p = 0.030) and deep-seated lesions (p = 0.060) increased the risk of biopsy-related death. Symptomatic haemorrhages resulting in death (1.5% of all biopsies) were more frequently seen after biopsy of a fronto-temporally located lesion (p = 0.007) and in patients with a histologically confirmed lymphoma (p = 0.039).

Conclusions. The diagnostic yield, complication rates, and biopsy-related mortality did not differ between a frameless biopsy technique and the established frame-based technique. The site of the lesion and the occurrence of a peri-operative complication were associated with the likelihood of failure to achieve a diagnosis and with death after biopsy. We believe that using intraoperative frozen section or cytologic smear histology is essential during a stereotactic biopsy in order to increase the diagnostic yield and to limit the number of biopsy specimens that need to be taken.

Keywords: Frame-based; frameless; biopsy; histology; mortality; stereotaxis. 


  1. Aker, FV, Hakan, T, Karadereler, S, Erkan, M 2005Accuracy and diagnostic yield of stereotactic biopsy in the diagnosis of brain masses: comparison of results of biopsy and resected surgical specimensNeuropathology25207213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernstein, M, Parrent, AG 1994Complications of CT-guided stereotactic biopsy of intra-axial brain lesionsJ Neurosurg81165168PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Clarke, RH, Horsley, VA 1906On a method of investigating the deep ganglia and tracts of the central nervous system (cerebellum)Br Med J217991800Google Scholar
  4. Dorward, NL, Alberti, O, Palmer, JD, Kitchen, ND, Thomas, DG 1999Accuracy of true frameless stereotaxy: in vivo measurement and laboratory phantom studies. Technical noteJ Neurosurg90160168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dorward, NL, Paleologos, TS, Alberti, O, Thomas, DG 2002The advantages of frameless stereotactic biopsy over frame-based biopsyBr J Neurosurg16110118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ferreira MP, Ferreira NP, Pereira Filho Ade A, Pereira Filho Gde A, Franciscatto AC (2006) Stereotactic computed tomography-guided brain biopsy: diagnostic yield based on a series of 170 patients. Surg Neurol (65 Suppl 1): S1: 27–21: 32Google Scholar
  7. Grossman, R, Sadetzki, S, Spiegelmann, R, Ram, Z 2005Haemorrhagic complications and the incidence of asymptomatic bleeding associated with stereotactic brain biopsiesActa Neurochir (Wien)147627631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hall, WA 1998The safety and efficacy of stereotactic biopsy for intracranial lesionsCancer8217491755PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Heper, AO, Erden, E, Savas, A, Ceyhan, K, Erden, I, Akyar, S, Kanpolat, Y 2005An analysis of stereotactic biopsy of brain tumours and nonneoplastic lesions: a prospective clinicopathologic studySurg Neurol2S82S88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Horsley, VA, Clarke, RH 1908The structure of the cerebellus examined by a new methodBrain3145124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kandel, EI, Schavinsky, YV 1972Stereotaxic apparatus and operations in Russia in the 19th centuryJ Neurosurg37407411PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kim, JE, Kim, DG, Paek, SH, Jung, HW 2003Stereotactic biopsy for intracranial lesions: reliability and its impact on the planning of treatmentActa Neurochir (Wien)145547554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kondziolka, D, Lunsford, LD 1999The role of stereotactic biopsy in the management of gliomasJ Neurooncol42205213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Krieger, MD, Chandrasoma, PT, Zee, CS, Apuzzo, ML 1998Role of stereotactic biopsy in the diagnosis and management of brain tumoursSemin Surg Oncol141325PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kulkarni, AV, Guha, A, Lozano, A, Bernstein, M 1998Incidence of silent hemorrhage and delayed deterioration after stereotactic brain biopsyJ Neurosurg893135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lee, T, Kenny, BG, Hitchock, ER, Teddy, PJ, Palividas, H, Harkness, W, Meyer, CH 1991Supratentorial masses: stereotactic or freehand biopsy?Br J Neurosurg5331338PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Leksell, L 1949A stereotaxic apparatus for intracerebral surgeryActa Chir Scand99229233Google Scholar
  18. Leksell, L, Leksell, D, Schwebel, J 1985Stereotaxis and nuclear magnetic resonanceJ Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry481418PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Maroon, JC, Bank, WO, Drayer, BP, Rosenbaum, AE 1977Intracranial biopsy assisted by computerized tomographyJ Neurosurg46740744PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. McGirt, MJ, Woodworth, GF, Coon, AL, Frazier, JM, Amundson, E, Garonzik, I, Olivi, A, Weingart, JD 2005Independent predictors of morbidity after image-guided stereotactic brain biopsy: a risk assessment of 270 casesJ Neurosurg102897901PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Mosskin, M, Ericson, K, Hindmarsh, T, von Holst, H, Collins, VP, Bergstrom, M, Eriksson, L, Johnstrom, P 1989Positron emission tomography compared with magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography in supratentorial gliomas using multiple stereotactic biopsies as referenceActa Radiol30225232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. O’Neill, KS, Dyer, PV, Bell, BA, Wilkins, PR, Uttley, D, Marsh, HT 1992Is peroperative smear cytology necessary for CT-guided stereotaxic biopsy?Br J Neurosurg6421427PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Paleologos, TS, Dorward, NL, Wadley, JP, Thomas, DG 2001Clinical validation of true frameless stereotactic biopsy: analysis of the first 125 consecutive casesNeurosurgery49830835PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sawin, PD, Hitchon, PW, Follett, KA, Torner, JC 1998Computed imaging-assisted stereotactic brain biopsy: a risk analysis of 225 consecutive casesSurg Neurol49640649PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shastri-Hurst, N, Tsegaye, M, Robson, DK, Lowe, JS, Macarthur, DC 2006Stereotactic brain biopsy: an audit of sampling reliability in a clinical case seriesBr J Neurosurg20222226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Smith, JS, Quinones-Hinojosa, A, Barbaro, NM, McDermott, MW 2005Frame-based stereotactic biopsy remains an important diagnostic tool with distinct advantages over frameless stereotactic biopsyJ Neurooncol73173179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Spiegel, EA, Wycis, HT, Marks, M, Lee, ASJ 1947Stereotaxic apparatus for operations on the human brainScience106349350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tilgner, J, Herr, M, Ostertag, C, Volk, B 2005Validation of intraoperative diagnoses using smear preparations from stereotactic brain biopsies: intraoperative versus final diagnosis – influence of clinical factorsNeurosurgery56257265PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Watanabe, E, Watanabe, T, Manaka, S, Mayanagi, Y, Takakura, K 1987Three-dimensional digitizer (neuronavigator): new equipment for computed tomography-guided stereotaxic surgerySurg Neurol27543547PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wen, DY, Hall, WA, Miller, DA, Seljeskog, EL, Maxwell, RE 1993Targeted brain biopsy: a comparison of freehand computed tomography-guided and stereotactic techniquesNeurosurgery32407412PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Woodworth, G, McGirt, MJ, Samdani, A, Garonzik, I, Olivi, A, Weingart, JD 2005Accuracy of frameless and frame-based image-guided stereotactic brain biopsy in the diagnosis of glioma: comparison of biopsy and open resection specimenNeurol Res27358362PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Woodworth, GF, McGirt, MJ, Samdani, A, Garonzik, I, Olivi, A, Weingart, JD 2006Frameless image-guided stereotactic brain biopsy procedure: diagnostic yield, surgical morbidity, and comparison with the frame-based techniqueJ Neurosurg104233237PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Zernov DN (1889) Encephalometer: device for determination of the location of brain parts of living humans. Proceedings of the society of physicomedicine, Moscow, vol. 2, pp 70–86Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Dammers
    • 1
    Email author
  • I. K. Haitsma
    • 1
  • J. W. Schouten
    • 1
  • J. M. Kros
    • 2
  • C. J. J. Avezaat
    • 1
  • A. J. P. E. Vincent
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of NeurosurgeryErasmus Medical CenterRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of PathologyErasmus Medical CenterRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations