PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF NONCONVENTIONAL RADIOLOGICAL TECHNOLOGIES USED IN NEUROSURGERY CONSIDERING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION
Keywords:
radiology, ultrasonography, management planning, healthcare evaluationAbstract
The manuscript examines unconventional radiological practices, focusing on intraoperative ultrasound in neurosurgery and its clinical applicability for certain pathological entities. It argues that ultrasonographic methods offer practical benefits for patients and healthcare systems, including shorter operating times, improved tumour delineation, and real-time monitoring of procedures. Their relative availability, low costs, and ease of implementation make these procedures appealing alternatives for units with limited resources. Defining clear indications and optimising protocols remain key challenges, requiring standardised methodologies and specialised training programmes. We assess clinical efficacy and safety by implementing protocols, standards, and guidelines at national and international levels, protecting patients and maintaining system integrity. We suggest conducting multicentre studies, quality audits, and developing standardised protocols adaptable to diverse institutional capabilities. Ultimately, integrating intraoperative ultrasound into neurosurgery requires a multifaceted, evidence-based approach, ongoing education, and health policies that promote the responsible adoption of the technology for patient benefit. Economic, ethical, and legal considerations should also be incorporated into planning, including cost-effectiveness analyses, informed consent, and intellectual property protections. International collaboration is essential for uniform and sustainable implementation.References
1. K. L. Cole, M. C. Findlay, M. Kundu, C. M. Johansen, C. Rawanduzy, and B. Lucke–Wold, “The Role of Advanced Imaging in Neurosurgical Diagnosis,” Journal of Modern Medical Imaging, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.53964/jmmi.2023002.
2. S. Camp et al., “Objective image analysis of real-time three-dimensional intraoperative ultrasound for intrinsic brain tumour surgery,” Journal of Therapeutic Ultrasound, vol. 5, no. 1, Jan. 2017, doi: 10.1186/s40349-017-0084-0.
3. S. M. Navarro et al., “Surgical applications of ultrasound use in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A systematic review,” Australasian Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine, vol. 25, no. 2, p. 80, May 2022, doi: 10.1002/ajum.12302.
4. A. Taubman, “A Typology of Intellectual Property Management for Public Health Innovation and Access: Design Considerations for Policymakers,” The Open AIDS Journal, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 4, Jan. 2010, doi: 10.2174/1874613601004010004.
5. B. L. Vey et al., “Intellectual property: A primer for radiologists,” Clinical Imaging, vol. 91, p. 60, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2022.08.013.
6. M. C. Ploem, “Legal challenges for the implementation of advanced clinical digital decision support systems in Europe,” Journal of Clinical and Translational Research, Jan. 2018, doi: 10.18053/jctres.03.2017s3.005.
7. W. T. Organization., “Promoting Access to Medical Technologies and Innovation - Intersections between Public Health, Intellectual Property and Trade.,” CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research). European Organization for Nuclear Research, Jan. 01, 2013. doi: 10.34667/tind.28688.
8. P. C. Gøtzsche, “Why we need easy access to all data from all clinical trials and how to accomplish it,” Trials, vol. 12, no. 1, Nov. 2011, doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-12-249.
9. K. Krleža-Jerić, A. Chan, K. Dickersin, I. Sim, J. Grimshaw, and C. Gluud, “Principles for international registration of protocol information and results from human trials of health related interventions: Ottawa statement (part 1),” BMJ, vol. 330, no. 7497. BMJ, p. 956, Apr. 21, 2005. doi: 10.1136/bmj.330.7497.956.
10. E. Ogando‐Rivas et al., “Evolution and Revolution of Imaging Technologies in Neurosurgery,” Neurologia medico-chirurgica, vol. 62, no. 12, p. 542, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.2176/jns-nmc.2022-0116.
11. M. Ammar, M. Gamal, A. E. A. Kreasha, and A. E. Mousa, “Evaluation of Neuronavigation in Glioma Surgery,” Open Journal of Modern Neurosurgery, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 36, Nov. 2019, doi: 10.4236/ojmn.2020.101005.
12. R. García-Navarrete et al., “Multimodal Neuronavigation for Brain Tumor Surgery,” in IntechOpen eBooks, IntechOpen, 2021. doi: 10.5772/intechopen.97216.
13. S. Jiang, H. Chai, and Q. Tang, “Advances in the intraoperative delineation of malignant glioma margin,” Frontiers in Oncology, vol. 13. Frontiers Media, Jan. 26, 2023. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1114450.
14. W. A. E. A. Elmesallamy, “The role of intraoperative ultrasound in gross total resection of brain mass lesions and outcome,” The Egyptian Journal of Neurology Psychiatry and Neurosurgery, vol. 55, no. 1, Nov. 2019, doi: 10.1186/s41983-019-0117-4.
15. R. Antonio, M. Marques, A. H. Marques, and A. Marques, Arquivos Brasileiros de Neurocirurgia Brazilian Neurosurgery, vol. 42, no. 4, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.1055/s-013-58600.
16. L. F. M. da Silva, G. Machado, and R. Ramina, “Neurosurgical Tools to Improve Safety and Survival in Patients with Intracranial Tumors: Neuronavigation, MRI, and 5-ALA,” in IntechOpen eBooks, IntechOpen, 2019. doi: 10.5772/intechopen.81211.
17. A. Pesce et al., “Intraoperative Ultrasound in the Management of Rare Lesions Involving the Intradural Extramedullary Spinal Compartment: A Quick, but Effective Helping Hand to Define the Optimal Surgical Strategy,” Cancers, vol. 17, no. 22, p. 3607, Nov. 2025, doi: 10.3390/cancers17223607.
18. L. Canalini, J. Klein, D. Miller, and R. Kikinis, “Enhanced registration of ultrasound volumes by segmentation of resection cavity in neurosurgical procedures,” International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, vol. 15, no. 12, p. 1963, Oct. 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11548-020-02273-1.
19. S. Cepeda, S. García-García, I. Arrese, and R. Sarabia, “Unraveling the Efficiency of Non-Navigated 2D Intraoperative Ultrasound in Glioma Surgery: Challenging the Demand for Increased Technological Sophistication in Intraoperative Imaging,” medRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory), Jun. 2023, doi: 10.1101/2023.06.01.23290675.
20. A. Moiyadi and P. Shetty, “Objective assessment of utility of intraoperative ultrasound in resection of central nervous system tumors: A cost-eff ective tool for intraoperative navigation in neurosurgery,” Journal of Neurosciences in Rural Practice, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 4, Jan. 2011, doi: 10.4103/0976-3147.80077.
21. G. Unsgaard et al., “Intra-operative 3D ultrasound in neurosurgery,” Acta Neurochirurgica, vol. 148, no. 3, p. 235, Dec. 2005, doi: 10.1007/s00701-005-0688-y.
22. I. ZAED, G. M. D. PEPA, D. Cannizzaro, G. MENNA, and A. CARDIA, “Applicability and efficacy of ultrasound elastography in neurosurgery: a systematic review of the literature,” Journal of Neurosurgical Sciences, vol. 67, no. 6, p. 750, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.23736/s0390-5616.22.05866-0.
23. A. Albakr et al., “Ultrasound Elastography in Neurosurgery: Current Applications and Future Perspectives,” World Neurosurgery, vol. 170, p. 195, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2022.10.108.
24. F. A. Schmidt et al., “Elastic Image Fusion Software to Coregister Preoperatively Planned Pedicle Screws with Intraoperative Computed Tomography Data for Image-Guided Spinal Surgery,” The International Journal of Spine Surgery, vol. 15, no. 2, p. 295, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.14444/8039.
25. E. Mazzucchi et al., “Automatic rigid image Fusion of preoperative MR and intraoperative US acquired after craniotomy,” Cancer Imaging, vol. 23, no. 1, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.1186/s40644-023-00554-x.
26. G. R. Soto et al., “Intraoperative Ultrasound: An Old but Ever New Technology for a More Personalized Approach to Brain Tumor Surgery,” Cureus, vol. 16, no. 6, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.7759/cureus.62278.
27. M. Sc. D. I. E. G. A. R. E. LAKANY et al., “Intraoperative Ultrasound as a Decision-Making Tool in Modern Gynecologic Oncology,” Journal of Personalized Medicine, vol. 15, no. 7, p. 296, Jul. 2025, doi: 10.3390/jpm15070296.
28. M. D. Jenkinson et al., “Intraoperative imaging technology to maximise extent of resection for glioma,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, vol. 2021, no. 5, Jan. 2018, doi: 10.1002/14651858.cd012788.pub2.
29. P. Abraham et al., “Cost-effectiveness of Intraoperative MRI for Treatment of High-Grade Gliomas,” Radiology, vol. 291, no. 3, p. 689, Mar. 2019, doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019182095.
30. K. Cooper et al., “Clinical and cost-effectiveness of medical management versus surgery for deep infiltrating endometriosis: synopsis from the DIAMOND RCT,” Health Technology Assessment, p. 1, Jul. 2025, doi: 10.3310/gjkc5715.
31. R. Gopaul, G. Bearman, and M. Stevens, “Ultrasound Use in Resource-limited Settings: A Systematic Review,” Journal of Global Radiology, vol. 4, no. 1, Dec. 2018, doi: 10.7191/jgr.2018.1049.
32. S. T. Solís et al., “Imagen intraoperatoria en el quirófano de neurocirugía: revisión de las técnicas más empleadas para la cirugía de los tumores cerebrales,” Neurocirugía, vol. 31, no. 4, p. 184, Dec. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.neucir.2019.08.007.
33. G. E. F. Méndez, C. J. R. Chacón, N. J. Brito-Nuñez, and J. Zerpa, “Utility of Intraoperative Ultrasound in Neurosurgery,” Arquivos Brasileiros de Neurocirurgia Brazilian Neurosurgery, vol. 40, no. 2, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1722243.
34. D. G. Quigley, “Complication Avoidance in Neurosurgery with Use of Intraoperative Ultrasonography,” Acta neurochirurgica. Supplementum, vol. 130, p. 135, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-12887-6_17.
35. S. Bayer, A. Maier, M. Ostermeier, and R. Fahrig, “Intraoperative Imaging Modalities and Compensation for Brain Shift in Tumor Resection Surgery,” International Journal of Biomedical Imaging, vol. 2017, p. 1, Jan. 2017, doi: 10.1155/2017/6028645.
36. A. Moiraghi et al., “Navigated Intraoperative 2-Dimensional Ultrasound in High-Grade Glioma Surgery: Impact on Extent of Resection and Patient Outcome,” Operative Neurosurgery, vol. 18, no. 4, p. 363, Aug. 2019, doi: 10.1093/ons/opz203.
37. R. Wei, H. Chen, Y. Cai, and J. Chen, “Application of intraoperative ultrasound in the resection of high-grade gliomas,” Frontiers in Neurology, vol. 14. Frontiers Media, Oct. 26, 2023. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2023.1240150.
38. B. K. R. Munkvold, A. S. Jakola, I. Reinertsen, L. M. Sagberg, G. Unsgård, and O. Solheim, “The Diagnostic Properties of Intraoperative Ultrasound in Glioma Surgery and Factors Associated with Gross Total Tumor Resection,” World Neurosurgery, vol. 115, Apr. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.03.208.
39. F. A. Jólesz, “Intraoperative Imaging in Neurosurgery: Where Will the Future Take Us?” Acta neurochirurgica. Supplementum, p. 21, Aug. 2010, doi: 10.1007/978-3-211-99651-5_4.
40. C. Askeland et al., “CustusX: an open-source research platform for image-guided therapy,” International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, vol. 11, no. 4. Springer Science+Business Media, p. 505, Sep. 26, 2015. doi: 10.1007/s11548-015-1292-0.
41. S. E. Jaouhari et al., “Introduction to DICOM-RTV: a new standard for real-time video communication in hospitals,” p. 1, Oct. 2019, doi: 10.1109/healthcom46333.2019.9009435.
42. Z. Zhang et al., “The effect of gel pads on the measurement of breast superficial lesions by shear wave elastography,” Annals of Medicine, vol. 55, no. 2, p. 2269941, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.1080/07853890.2023.2269941.
43. J. M. Levy, D. Barrett, N. M. Harris, J. Jeong, X. Yang, and S. C. Chen, “High-frequency ultrasound in clinical dermatology: a review,” The Ultrasound Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 24, Apr. 2021, doi: 10.1186/s13089-021-00222-w.
44. R. Luca, L. Forzoni, F. Gelli, and J. C. Bamber, “An Educational Overview of Ultrasound Probe Types and Their Fields of Application,” Archives of Acoustics, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.24425/aoa.2021.136555.
45. A. Moiyadi et al., “Clinical Validation of Intraoperative Ultrasound-Based Automated Rigid Image Fusion to Update Neuronavigation Using Preoperative MRI,” Operative Neurosurgery, vol. 29, no. 5, p. 639, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.1227/ons.0000000000001519.
46. P. Zaffino, S. Moccia, E. D. Momi, and M. F. Spadea, “A Review on Advances in Intra-operative Imaging for Surgery and Therapy: Imagining the Operating Room of the Future,” Annals of Biomedical Engineering, vol. 48, no. 8. Springer Science+Business Media, p. 2171, Jun. 29, 2020. doi: 10.1007/s10439-020-02553-6.
47. J. Shapey et al., “Integrated multi-modality image-guided navigation for neurosurgery: open-source software platform using state-of-the-art clinical hardware,” International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, vol. 16, no. 8, p. 1347, May 2021, doi: 10.1007/s11548-021-02374-5.
48. D. A. Wiegmann, A. A. Eggman, A. W. ElBardissi, S. Parker, and T. M. Sundt, “Improving cardiac surgical care: A work systems approach,” Applied Ergonomics, vol. 41, no. 5. Elsevier BV, p. 701, Mar. 05, 2010. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2009.12.008.
49. H. F. A. Janabi et al., “Effectiveness of the HoloLens mixed-reality headset in minimally invasive surgery: a simulation-based feasibility study,” Surgical Endoscopy, vol. 34, no. 3, p. 1143, Jun. 2019, doi: 10.1007/s00464-019-06862-3.
50. B. Stringer, C. Infante‐Rivard, and J. A. Hanley, “Effectiveness of the hands-free technique in reducing operating theatre injuries,” Occupational and Environmental Medicine, vol. 59, no. 10, p. 703, Sep. 2002, doi: 10.1136/oem.59.10.703.
51. V. V. Velthoven and L. M. Auer, “Practical application of intraoperative ultrasound imaging,” Acta Neurochirurgica, vol. 105, p. 5, Mar. 1990, doi: 10.1007/bf01664851.
52. A. Nyberg, M. Jirwe, A. Fagerdahl, V. Otten, M. Haney, and B. Olofsson, “Perioperative patient safety indicators—A Delphi study,” Journal of Clinical Nursing, vol. 34, no. 4, p. 1351, May 2024, doi: 10.1111/jocn.17212.
53. N. Manohar, D. P. Mohapatra, A. Balasubramaniam, K. Rao, D. Srinivas, and D. Chakrabarti, “Setting Up Workflow of an Intraoperative MRI Unit: A Single-Centre Experience of First 53 Cases,” Journal of Neuroanaesthesiology and Critical Care, vol. 5, no. 3, p. 177, Sep. 2018, doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1673503.
54. A. Mosteiro et al., “Is intraoperative ultrasound more efficient than magnetic resonance in neurosurgical oncology? An exploratory cost-effectiveness analysis,” Frontiers in Oncology, vol. 12, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.1016264.
55. R. Koprowski, Medical and Biological Image Analysis . 2018. doi: 10.5772/intechopen.72065.
56. B. Lee et al., “Implementation and quality assessment of a clinical orthopaedic registry in a public hospital department,” BMC Health Services Research, vol. 20, no. 1, p. 393, May 2020, doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-05203-8.
57. F. Brugada-Bellsolà et al., “Intraoperative Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance comparative analyses in brain tumor surgery: a valuable tool to flatten ultrasound’s learning curve,” Research Square (Research Square), Aug. 2024, doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4731776/v1.
58. E. Colombo et al., “Mixed Reality for Cranial Neurosurgical Planning: A Single-Center Applicability Study with the First 107 Subsequent Holograms,” Operative Neurosurgery, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.1227/ons.0000000000001033.
59. D. Moniz‐Garcia et al., “Awake Craniotomy Program Implementation,” JAMA Network Open, vol. 7, no. 1, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.52917.
60. N. Hertzsprung et al., “Personalized surgical informed consent with stereoscopic visualization in neurosurgery—real benefit for the patient or unnecessary gimmick?” Acta Neurochirurgica, vol. 165, no. 4, p. 1087, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.1007/s00701-023-05512-x.
61. A. Deistung, A. Gussew, J. Schneider, A. Beblacz, M. Pech, and W. A. Wohlgemuth, “Remote operation of cross-sectional imaging devices as a new form of teleoperation: Structural, technical, regulatory, and qualification aspects in Germany,” RöFo - Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der Röntgenstrahlen und der bildgebenden Verfahren, vol. 196, no. 9. Thieme Medical Publishers (Germany), p. 928, Mar. 13, 2024. doi: 10.1055/a-2232-2907.
62. M. G. Fornasari et al., “The impact of forensic experience on postmortem CT interpretation in firearm deaths: an interobserver reliability study,” La radiologia medica, Oct. 2025, doi: 10.1007/s11547-025-02126-4.
63. S. Chaifetz, D. A. Chokshi, R. Rajkumar, D. Scales, and Y. R. Benkler, “Closing the access gap for health innovations: an open licensing proposal for universities,” Globalization and Health, vol. 3, no. 1, Feb. 2007, https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-8603-3-1.
64. M. Barone, S. Hammond, M. Sprague, and D. E. Womble, “A2E High Fidelity Modeling: Strategic Planning Meetings,” Oct. 2015. https://doi.org/10.2172/1225833.
65. C. Lemmen and P. S. Sommer, “Good Modelling Software Practices,” arXiv (Cornell University), May 2024, doi: 10.48550/arxiv.2405.21051.
66. M. Conte et al., “Ten simple rules to make computable knowledge shareable and reusable,” PLoS Computational Biology, vol. 20, no. 6, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1012179.
67. Á. Fernández-Quilez, “Deep learning in radiology: ethics of data and on the value of algorithm transparency, interpretability and explainability,” AI and Ethics, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 257, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s43681-022-00161-9.
68. European Commission, “Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council,” 2017.
69. A. M. Hersh et al., “Applications of elastography in operative neurosurgery: A systematic review,” Journal of Clinical Neuroscience, vol. 104, p. 18, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2022.07.019.
70. J. Y. Lee et al., “The AFSUMB Consensus Statements and Recommendations for the Clinical Practice of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound using Sonazoid,” ULTRASONOGRAPHY, vol. 39, no. 3, p. 191, Apr. 2020, doi: 10.14366/usg.20057.
71. E. J. Topol, “High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence,” Nature Medicine, vol. 25, no. 1, p. 44, Dec. 2018, doi: 10.1038/s41591-018-0300-7.
72. V. Velho, H. Kharosekar, L. Bhople, and S. Domkundwar, “Intraoperative ultrasound an economical tool for neurosurgeons: A single-center experience,” Asian Journal of Neurosurgery, vol. 15, no. 4, p. 983, Dec. 2020, https://doi.org/10.4103/ajns.ajns_332_20.
73. S. García-García, J. Höhne, R. Martínez-Pérez, and S. Cepeda, “Editorial: Assessment of intraoperative image technologies to optimize clinical outcomes in neurosurgical oncology,” Frontiers in Oncology, vol. 13, May 2023, https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2023.1202240.
74. D. Andronic, A. M. Țîțu, and A.-F. Iamandii, “Management of exploration of traumatic injuries through protocols in the field of neurosurgery and the importance of intellectual property in this context,” Journal of Research and Innovation for Sustainable Society, vol. 6, no. 2, p. 7, Nov. 2024, doi: 10.33727/jriss.2024.2.1:7-17.
75. A. Das et al., “Ethical Framework for Responsible Foundational Models in Medical Imaging,” arXiv (Cornell University), Apr. 2024, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.11868.
76. A. Bianconi et al., “Deep learning-based algorithm for postoperative glioblastoma MRI segmentation: a promising new tool for tumor burden assessment,” Brain Informatics, vol. 10, no. 1, Oct. 2023, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40708-023-00207-6.
77. A. J. Sulangi, A. Husain, H. Lei, and J. Okun, “Neuronavigation in glioma resection: current applications, challenges, and clinical outcomes,” Frontiers in Surgery, vol. 11. Frontiers Media, Aug. 06, 2024. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2024.1430567.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Nonconventional Technologies Review
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
