RESUMO
Background: 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: 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: 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 (p < 0.05). In robotics, the mean depth deviation along the trajectory was -0.22 mm (95% CI -0.25 to -0.14 mm). The mean lateral deviation was 0.43 mm (95% CI 0.32-0.49 mm). In frame-based stereotaxy, the mean depth deviation amounted to -0.20 mm (95% CI -0.26 to -0.14 mm), the mean lateral deviation to 0.65 mm (95% CI 0.55-0.74 mm). Conclusion: 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.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Robotic guidance might be an alternative to classic stereotaxy for biopsies of intracranial lesions. Both methods were compared regarding time efficacy, histopathological results and complications. METHODS: A retrospective analysis enrolling all patients undergoing robotic- or stereotactic biopsies between 01/2015 and 12/2018 was conducted. Trajectory planning was performed on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). With the Robotic Surgery Assistant (ROSA), patient registration was accomplished using a facial laser scan in the operating room (OR), immediately followed by biopsy. In stereotaxy, patients were transported to the CT for Leksell Frame registration, followed by biopsy in the OR. RESULTS: The average overall procedure time amounted in robotics to 169 min and in stereotaxy to 179 min (p = 0.005). The difference was greatest for temporal targets, amounting in robotics to 161 min and in stereotaxy to 188 min (p = 0,0007). However, the average time spent purely in the OR amounted in robotics to 140 min and in stereotaxy to 113 min (p < 0.001). In 150 robotic biopsies, diagnostic yield amounted to 98%, in 266 stereotactic biopsies to 91%. Symptomatic postoperative hemorrhages were observed in 3 patients (2%) in robotic biopsy and 7 patients (2,7%) in stereotactic biopsy. CONCLUSION: Robotics showed a shorter overall procedure time as there is no need for a transport to the CT whereas the pure OR time was shorter in stereotaxy due to skipping the laser registration process. Diagnostic yield was higher in robotics, most likely due to case selection, complication rates were equal.