Accuracy of Robotic and Frame-Based Stereotactic Neurosurgery in a Phantom Model.
mechanical accuracy
phantom study
robot-guided stereotaxy
stereotactic frame
stereotactic neurosurgery
Journal
Frontiers in neurorobotics
ISSN: 1662-5218
Titre abrégé: Front Neurorobot
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101477958
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
21
08
2021
accepted:
04
03
2022
entrez:
6
5
2022
pubmed:
7
5
2022
medline:
7
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The development of robotic systems has provided an alternative to frame-based stereotactic procedures. The aim of this experimental phantom study was to compare the mechanical accuracy of the Robotic Surgery Assistant (ROSA) and the Leksell stereotactic frame by reducing clinical and procedural factors to a minimum. To precisely compare mechanical accuracy, a stereotactic system was chosen as reference for both methods. A thin layer CT scan with an acrylic phantom fixed to the frame and a localizer enabling the software to recognize the coordinate system was performed. For each of the five phantom targets, two different trajectories were planned, resulting in 10 trajectories. A series of five repetitions was performed, each time based on a new CT scan. Hence, 50 trajectories were analyzed for each method. X-rays of the final cannula position were fused with the planning data. The coordinates of the target point and the endpoint of the robot- or frame-guided probe were visually determined using the robotic software. The target point error (TPE) was calculated applying the Euclidian distance. The depth deviation along the trajectory and the lateral deviation were separately calculated. Robotics was significantly more accurate, with an arithmetic TPE mean of 0.53 mm (95% CI 0.41-0.55 mm) compared to 0.72 mm (95% CI 0.63-0.8 mm) in stereotaxy ( Both the robotic and frame-based approach proved accurate. The robotic procedure showed significantly higher accuracy. For both methods, procedural factors occurring during surgery might have a more relevant impact on overall accuracy.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
The development of robotic systems has provided an alternative to frame-based stereotactic procedures. The aim of this experimental phantom study was to compare the mechanical accuracy of the Robotic Surgery Assistant (ROSA) and the Leksell stereotactic frame by reducing clinical and procedural factors to a minimum.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
To precisely compare mechanical accuracy, a stereotactic system was chosen as reference for both methods. A thin layer CT scan with an acrylic phantom fixed to the frame and a localizer enabling the software to recognize the coordinate system was performed. For each of the five phantom targets, two different trajectories were planned, resulting in 10 trajectories. A series of five repetitions was performed, each time based on a new CT scan. Hence, 50 trajectories were analyzed for each method. X-rays of the final cannula position were fused with the planning data. The coordinates of the target point and the endpoint of the robot- or frame-guided probe were visually determined using the robotic software. The target point error (TPE) was calculated applying the Euclidian distance. The depth deviation along the trajectory and the lateral deviation were separately calculated.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Robotics was significantly more accurate, with an arithmetic TPE mean of 0.53 mm (95% CI 0.41-0.55 mm) compared to 0.72 mm (95% CI 0.63-0.8 mm) in stereotaxy (
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
Both the robotic and frame-based approach proved accurate. The robotic procedure showed significantly higher accuracy. For both methods, procedural factors occurring during surgery might have a more relevant impact on overall accuracy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35515711
doi: 10.3389/fnbot.2022.762317
pmc: PMC9063629
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
762317Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Spyrantis, Woebbecke, Rueß, Constantinescu, Gierich, Luyken, Visser-Vandewalle, Herrmann, Gessler, Czabanka, Treuer, Ruge and Freiman.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. 2015;93(1):68
pubmed: 25659811
Comput Aided Surg. 2002;7(2):90-8
pubmed: 12112718
Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. 1992;58(1-4):103-7
pubmed: 1439325
Childs Nerv Syst. 2018 Jul;34(7):1299-1309
pubmed: 29744625
Epilepsy Behav. 2019 Feb;91:38-47
pubmed: 30497893
Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown). 2020 Jul 1;19(1):57-64
pubmed: 31647105
Med Phys. 2017 Sep;44(9):4463-4473
pubmed: 28639387
Neurosurgery. 2021 Jan 13;88(2):222-233
pubmed: 33045739
Neurosurg Focus. 2017 May;42(5):E7
pubmed: 28463617
Front Neurol. 2020 Dec 16;11:570010
pubmed: 33391145
Neurosurg Focus. 2017 May;42(5):E8
pubmed: 28463615
Surg Neurol Int. 2019 Apr 24;10:67
pubmed: 31528405
J Neurosurg. 2015 Feb;122(2):342-52
pubmed: 25380111
Biomed Instrum Technol. 1991 Nov-Dec;25(6):457-60
pubmed: 1777768
World Neurosurg. 2019 Mar;123:e450-e456
pubmed: 30500594
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2019 May;20(5):27-36
pubmed: 30950167
Phys Med Biol. 2004 Sep 7;49(17):3877-87
pubmed: 15470911
Int J Med Robot. 2018 Apr;14(2):
pubmed: 29316270
Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. 2014;92(4):242-50
pubmed: 25170634
J Robot Surg. 2018 Mar;12(1):157-163
pubmed: 28484885
Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. 2018;96(5):327-334
pubmed: 30481770
J Neurosurg. 2015 Jan;122(1):191-4
pubmed: 25361490
Br J Neurosurg. 2014 Oct;28(5):637-44
pubmed: 24568533
Ann Palliat Med. 2021 Apr;10(4):3699-3705
pubmed: 33691455
Neurosurgery. 2018 Oct 1;83(4):642-650
pubmed: 29253265