Skip to main content

This is a preprint.

It has not yet been peer reviewed by a journal.

The National Library of Medicine is running a pilot to include preprints that result from research funded by NIH in PMC and PubMed.

medRxiv logoLink to medRxiv
[Preprint]. 2023 Feb 8:2023.02.06.23285526. [Version 1] doi: 10.1101/2023.02.06.23285526

Comparison of coil placement approaches targeting dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in depressed adolescents receiving repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation: an electric field modeling study

Zhi-De Deng, Pei L Robins, Moritz Dannhauer, Laura M Haugen, John D Port, Paul E Croarkin
PMCID: PMC9934718  PMID: 36798297

Abstract

Background

A promising treatment option for adolescents with treatment-resistant depression is high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) delivered to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (L-DLPFC). Conventional coil placement strategies for rTMS in adults include the 5-cm rule, the Beam F3 method, and the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) neuronavigation method. The purpose of this study was to compare the three targeting approaches to a computational E-field optimization coil placement method in depressed adolescents.

Methods

Ten consenting and assenting depressed adolescents (4 females, age: 15.9 ± 1.1) participated in an open-label rTMS treatment study. Participants were offered MRI-guided rTMS 5 times per week over 6–8 weeks. To compute the induced E-field, a head model was generated based on MRI images, and a figure-8 TMS coil (Neuronetics) was placed over the L-DLPFC using the four targeting approaches.

Results

Results show that there was a significant difference in the induced E-field at the L-DLPFC between the four targeting methods ( χ 2 = 24.7, p < 0.001). Post hoc pairwise comparisons show that there was a significant difference between any two of the targeting methods (Holm adjusted p < 0.05), with the 5-cm rule producing the weakest E-field (46.0 ± 17.4 V/m), followed by the F3 method (87.4 ± 35.4 V/m), followed by the MRI-guided (112.1 ± 14.6 V/m), and followed by the computationally optimized method (130.1 ± 18.1 V/m). The Bartlett test of homogeneity of variances show that there was a significant difference in sample variance between the groups ( K 2 = 8.0, p < 0.05), with F3 having the largest variance. In participants who completed the full course of treatment, the median E-field strength in the L-DLPFC was correlated with the change in depression severity ( r = 0.77, p < 0.05).

Conclusions

The E-field models revealed inadequacies of scalp-based targeting methods compared to MRI-guidance. Computational optimization may further enhance E-field dose delivery to the treatment target.

Full Text Availability

The license terms selected by the author(s) for this preprint version do not permit archiving in PMC. The full text is available from the preprint server.


Articles from medRxiv are provided here courtesy of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Preprints

RESOURCES