Magnetic Resonance guided Focused Ultrasound (MRgFUS) is a hybrid technique used for surgery lesioning treatment for brain disorders. Morphological information is obtained from MR images, while the ablative process is performed with US. The main limit of the US beam is represented by the skull because bone can absorb and reflect the US energy. The skull bone is made up of two surfaces of compact bone separated by a layer of spongy bone (also called trabecular or diploe). The factor that takes into account the skull bone is called Skull Density Ratio (SDR) defined as the median ratio between spongy bone and compact bone. The SDR estimates the skull transparency to the US, and it is obtained from Computed Tomography images. In this study, we propose an alternative approach in SDR computation, always starting from CT images but only considering the spongy bone and not the compact tables. This approach is based on the different Hounsfield Units (HU) existing between compact bone and diploe, which could influence SDR computation and consequently the setting of physical parameters used for MRgFUS treatment. We compared the HU of this new approach with several physical parameters such as the n° of sonication; the maximum power delivered MPD (watt); the maximum energy delivered MED (J); the Highest average temperature (HAT) and the accumulated thermic dose (ATD). In addition, a comparison between the used SDR and the proposed SDR was performed. The obtained results showed a negative correlation between the HU and the US power and a significant trend between the HU and the Energy of the US. In the first case, a trabecular section with low HU reduces the transmission of US and to reach the temperature required to obtain ablation an increase in power is needed. The results from the SDR comparison showed that for high SDR values, there is no difference between Used SDR and Proposed SDR, while for low SDR values, we have noticed a great difference between used SDR and proposed SDR. The above information would be expected to be helpful for MRgFUS patients’ selection and also in optimizing treatment results.

1.
A.K.
Ahmed
,
S.
Guo
,
N.
Kelm
,
R.
Clanton
,
E.R.
Melhem
,
R.P.
Gullapalli
,
A.
Ksendzovsky
,
H.M.
Eisenberg
,
T.R.
Miller
and
D.
Gandhi
, “
Technical Comparison of Treatment Efficiency of Magnetic Resonance-Guided Focused Ultrasound Thalamotomy and Pallidotomy in Skull Density Ratio-Matched Patient Cohorts
”,
Front. Neurol.
2022
;
12
:
808810
. doi:
2.
D.
Schlesinger
,
S.
Benedict
,
C.
Diederich
,
W.
Gedroyc
,
A.
Klibanov
and
J.
Larner
, J., “
MR-guided focused ultrasound surgery, present and future
”,
Med. Phys.
2013
;
40
:
080901
.
3.
L.
Bonanno
,
S.
Marino
,
R.
Morabito
, et al, “
Evaluation of US and MRI techniques for carotid stenosis: a novel phantom approach
”,
Radiol med
2019
;
124
:
368
374
.
4.
Z.
Izadifar
,
D.
Chapman
,
P.
Babyn
, “
An introduction to high intensity focused ultrasound: systematic review on principles, devices, and clinical applications
J Clin Med.
2020
;
9
(
2
):
460
.
5.
Focused Ultrasound Foundation. State of the field; 2020. Accessed November 30,
2021
. http://www.fusfoundation.org/images/pdf/Focused_Ultrasound_Foundation_2020_State_of_theFieldReport.pdf
6.
V.
Krishna
,
F.
Sammartino
,
A.
Rezai
, “
A review of the current therapies, challenges, and future directions of transcranial focused ultrasound technology: advances in diagnosis and treatment
”,
JAMA Neurol.
2018
;
75
:
246
54
. doi:
7.
W.S.
Chang
,
H.H.
Jung
,
E.
Zadicario
,
I.
Rachmilevitch
,
T.
Tlusty
,
S.
Vitek
,
J.W.
Chang
, “
Factors associated with successful magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound treatment: efficiency of acoustic energy delivery through the skull
”,
J Neurosurg.
2016
;
124
(
2
):
411
6
. doi:
8.
Johnson
MD
,
Lim
HH
,
Netoff
TI
,
Connolly
AT
,
Johnson
N
,
Roy
A
,
Holt
A
,
Lim
KO
,
Carey
JR
,
Vitek
JL
,
He
B.
Neuromodulation for brain disorders: challenges and opportunities
.
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng.
2013
Mar;
60
(
3
):
610
24
. doi: .
9.
C.M.
Tempany
,
N.J.
McDannold
,
K.
Hynynen
,
F.A.
Jolesz
, “
Focused ultrasound surgery in oncology: overview and principles
”,
Radiology
2011
;
259
(
1
):
39
56
. doi:
10.
A.K.
Ahmed
,
S.
Guo
,
N.
Kelm
,
R.
Clanton
,
E.R.
Melhem
,
R.P.
Gullapalli
,
A.
Ksendzovsky
,
H.M.
Eisenberg
,
T.R.
Miller
,
D.
Gandhi
, “
Technical Comparison of Treatment Efficiency of Magnetic Resonance-Guided Focused Ultrasound Thalamotomy and Pallidotomy in Skull Density Ratio-Matched Patient Cohorts
”,
Front Neurol.
2022
;
21
;
12
:808810. doi:
11.
M.
D’Souza
,
K.S.
Chen
,
J.
Rosenberg
,
W.J.
Elias
,
H.M.
Eisenberg
,
R.
Gwinn
,
T.
Taira
,
J.W.
Chang
,
N.
Lipsman
,
V.
Krishna
,
K.
Igase
,
K.
Yamada
,
H.
Kishima
,
R.
Cosgrove
,
J.
Rumià
,
M.G.
Kaplitt
,
H.
Hirabayashi
,
D.
Nandi
,
J.M.
Henderson
,
K. Butts
Pauly
,
M.
Dayan
,
C.H.
Halpern
, and
Ghanouni
,
P.
, “
Impact of skull density ratio on efficacy and safety of magnetic resonance–guided focused ultrasound treatment of essential tremor
”,
Journal of Neurosurgery JNS
2020
;
132
(
5
):
1392
1397
. Retrieved May 21, 2023, from
12.
P.
Su
,
S.
Guo
,
S.
Roys
,
F.
Maier
,
H.
Bhat
,
E.R.
Melhem
,
D.
Gandhi
,
R.P.
Gullapalli
,
J.
Zhuo
, “
Transcranial MR Imaging-Guided Focused Ultrasound Interventions Using Deep Learning Synthesized CT
”,
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol.
2020
;
41
(
10
):
1841
1848
. doi:
13.
A.
Boutet
,
D.
Gwun
,
R.
Gramer
,
M.
Ranjan
,
G.J.B.
Elias
,
D.
Tilden
, et al, “
The relevance of skull density ratio in selecting candidates for transcranial MR-guided focused ultrasound
”,
J Neurosurg.
2019
;
132
:
1785
91
. doi:
14.
DenOtter
TD
,
Schubert
J.
Hounsfield Unit. 2023 Mar 6
. In:
StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL)
:
StatPearls Publishing
;
2023
Jan–. PMID: 31613501. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK547721/
15.
T. D.
Webb
et al, “
Measurements of the Relationship Between CT Hounsfield Units and Acoustic Velocity and How It Changes With Photon Energy and Reconstruction Method
”, in
IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control
2018
;
65
(
7
):
1111
-
1124
, July
2018
, doi: .
16.
King-Hai
Yang
,
Basic Finite Element Method as Applied to Injury
Biomechanics
2018
. Elsevier
17.
G.
Acri
, et al, “
A ‘user-friendly’ phantom to conduct Quality Controls on MRgFUS device
”,
Journal of Physics: Conference Series
2022
;
2162
(
1
):
012004
, .
18.
M.
Taheri
,
L.
Galo
,
C.
Potts
,
K.
Sakhel
, and
S.D.
Quinn
, “
Nonresective treatments for uterine fibroids: a systematic review of uterine and fibroid volume reductions
”,
International Journal of Hyperthermia
2019
;
36
(
1
):
294
300
.
19.
M.
Taheri
,
L.
Galo
,
C.
Potts
,
K.
Sakhel
, and
S.D.
Quinn
, “
Nonresective treatments for uterine fibroids: a systematic review of uterine and fibroid volume reductions
”,
International Journal of Hyperthermia
2019
;
36
(
1
):
294
300
.
20.
W.J.
Elias
,
D.
Huss
,
T.
Voss
,
J.
Loomba
,
M.
Khaled
,
E.
Zadicario
,
R. C.
Frysinger
,
S.A.
Sperling
,
S.
Wylie
,
S.J.
Monteith
,
J.
Druzgal
,
B.B.
Shah
,
M.
Harrison
, and
M.
Wintermark
, “
A Pilot Study of Focused Ultrasound Thalamotomy for Essential Tremor
”,
New England Journal of Medicine
2013
;
369
(
7
):
640
648
.
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.