COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

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.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

Managing Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome.Annals of Emergency Medicine 2024 March 26

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

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 Toggle icon

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