Article
Comparative study of robot-assisted versus conventional frame-based deep brain stimulation stereotactic neurosurgery
Roboter-Assistierte Stereotaktische versus Konventionelle Stereotaktische Deep Brain Stimulation Neurochiorurgie
Search Medline for
Authors
-
Mohammad Maarouf
- Krankenhaus Merheim, Klinikum der Universität Witten/Herdecke, Stereotaxie und Funktionelle Neurochirurgie, Köln, Deutschland
-
Clemens Neudorfer
- Krankenhaus Merheim, Klinikum der Universität Witten/Herdecke, Stereotaxie und Funktionelle Neurochirurgie, Köln, Deutschland
-
Faycal El Majdoub
- Krankenhaus Merheim, Klinikum der Universität Witten/Herdecke, Stereotaxie und Funktionelle Neurochirurgie, Köln, Deutschland
-
Stefan Hunsche
- Krankenhaus Merheim, Klinikum der Universität Witten/Herdecke, Stereotaxie und Funktionelle Neurochirurgie, Köln, Deutschland
| Published: | May 8, 2019 |
|---|
Outline
Text
Objective: 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).
Conclusion: 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. Hence, robot-assisted lead implantation can be considered an appropriate and reliable alternative to purely mechanical devices.
