We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Comparative Study of Robot-Assisted versus Conventional Frame-Based Deep Brain Stimulation Stereotactic Neurosurgery.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Technological advancements had a serious impact on the evolution of robotic systems in stereotactic neurosurgery over the last three decades and may turn robot-assisted stereotactic neurosurgery into a sophisticated alternative to purely mechanical guiding devices.
OBJECTIVES: To compare robot-assisted and conventional frame-based deep brain stimulation (DBS) surgery with regard to accuracy, precision, reliability, duration of surgery, intraoperative imaging quality, safety and maintenance using a standardized setup.
METHODS: Retrospective evaluation of 80 consecutive patients was performed who underwent DBS surgery using either a frame-based mechanical stereotactic guiding device (n = 40) or a stereotactic robot (ROSA Brain, MedTech, Montpellier, France) (n = 40).
RESULTS: The mean accuracy of robot-assisted and conventional lead implantation was 0.76 mm (SD: 0.37 mm, range: 0.17-1.52 mm) and 1.11 mm (SD: 0.59 mm, range: 0.10-2.90 mm), respectively. We observed a statistically significant difference in accuracy (p < 0.001) when comparing lateral deviations between both modalities. Furthermore, a statistical significance was observed when investigating the proportion of values exceeding 2.00 mm between both groups (p = 0.013). In 8.75% (n = 7) of conventionally implanted leads, lateral deviations were greater than 2.0 mm. With a maximum value of 1.52 mm, this threshold was never reached during robot-guided DBS. The mean duration of DBS surgery could be reduced significantly (p < 0.001) when comparing robot-guided DBS (mean: 325.1 ± 81.6 min) to conventional lead implantation (mean: 394.8 ± 66.6 min).
CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted DBS was shown to be superior to conventional lead implantation with respect to accuracy, precision and operation time. Improved quality control, continuous intraoperative monitoring and less manual adjustment likely contribute to the robotic system's reliability allowing high accuracy during lead implantation despite limited experience. Hence, robot-assisted lead implantation can be considered an appropriate and reliable alternative to purely mechanical devices.
OBJECTIVES: To compare robot-assisted and conventional frame-based deep brain stimulation (DBS) surgery with regard to accuracy, precision, reliability, duration of surgery, intraoperative imaging quality, safety and maintenance using a standardized setup.
METHODS: Retrospective evaluation of 80 consecutive patients was performed who underwent DBS surgery using either a frame-based mechanical stereotactic guiding device (n = 40) or a stereotactic robot (ROSA Brain, MedTech, Montpellier, France) (n = 40).
RESULTS: The mean accuracy of robot-assisted and conventional lead implantation was 0.76 mm (SD: 0.37 mm, range: 0.17-1.52 mm) and 1.11 mm (SD: 0.59 mm, range: 0.10-2.90 mm), respectively. We observed a statistically significant difference in accuracy (p < 0.001) when comparing lateral deviations between both modalities. Furthermore, a statistical significance was observed when investigating the proportion of values exceeding 2.00 mm between both groups (p = 0.013). In 8.75% (n = 7) of conventionally implanted leads, lateral deviations were greater than 2.0 mm. With a maximum value of 1.52 mm, this threshold was never reached during robot-guided DBS. The mean duration of DBS surgery could be reduced significantly (p < 0.001) when comparing robot-guided DBS (mean: 325.1 ± 81.6 min) to conventional lead implantation (mean: 394.8 ± 66.6 min).
CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted DBS was shown to be superior to conventional lead implantation with respect to accuracy, precision and operation time. Improved quality control, continuous intraoperative monitoring and less manual adjustment likely contribute to the robotic system's reliability allowing high accuracy during lead implantation despite limited experience. Hence, robot-assisted lead implantation can be considered an appropriate and reliable alternative to purely mechanical devices.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app