Table 1.
Comparison of diffusion tensor imaging (DTI)–based ventral intermediate nucleus targeting (T‐VIM) and conventional targeting method (S‐VIM)
| Conventional indirect targeting | DTI based targeting in ET patients, n = 14; M (SD) | DTI based targeting in controls, n = 15; M (SD) | Comparison of conventional targeting with DTI‐based targeting in ET patientsa | Comparison of DTI‐based targeting in ET patients and controlsa | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anterior coordinate | |||||
| Proportion of AC‐PC length | 21.6% | 32% (4%) | 32% (3.6%) | .00005 | .99 |
| Distance from PC (mm) | 6.7 (0.3) | 8.5 (1.1) | 7.9 (1.1) | .00005 | .15 |
| Lateral coordinate | |||||
| Distance from midline (mm) | 15 | 15 (1.3) | 13.5 (1.4) | .99 | .006 |
| Distance from third ventricle wall (mm) | 11.5 | 12.5 (1.2) | 12.4 (1.1) | .0004 | .82 |
AC, anterior commissure; PC, posterior commissure; ET, essential tremor.
a
P values are reported for comparison.