RESUMO
PURPOSE: Robotic-assisted carotid artery stenting (CAS) cases have been demonstrated with promising results. However, no quantitative measurements have been made to compare manual with robotic-assisted CAS. This study aims to quantify surgical performance using tool tip kinematic data and metrics of precision during CAS with manual and robotic control in an ex vivo model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Transfemoral CAS cases were performed in a high-fidelity endovascular simulator. Participants completed cases with manual and robotic techniques in 2 different carotid anatomies in random order. C-arm angulations, table position, and endovascular devices were standardized. Endovascular tool tip kinematic data were extracted. We calculated the spectral arc length (SPARC), average velocity, and idle time during navigation in the common carotid artery and lesion crossing. Procedural time, fluoroscopy time, movements of the deployed filter wire, precision of stent, and balloon positioning were recorded. Data were analyzed and compared between the 2 modalities. RESULTS: Ten participants performed 40 CAS cases with a procedural success of 100% and 0% residual stenosis. The median procedural time was significantly higher during the robotic-assisted cases (seconds, median [interquartile range, IQR]: 128 [49.5] and 161.5 [62.5], p=0.02). Fluoroscopy time differed significantly between manual and robotic-assisted procedures (seconds, median [IQR]: 81.5 [32] and 98.5 [39.5], p=0.1). Movement of the deployed filter wire did not show significant difference between manual and robotic interventions (mm, median [IQR]: 13 [10.5] and 12.5 [11], p=0.5). The postdilation balloon exceeded the margin of the stent with a median of 2 [1] mm in both groups. Navigation with robotic assistance showed significantly lower SPARC values (-5.78±3.14 and -8.63±3.98, p=0.04) and higher idle time values (8.92±8.71 and 3.47±3.9, p=0.02) than those performed manually. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic-assisted and manual CAS cases are comparable in the precision of stent and balloon positioning. Navigation in the carotid artery is associated with smoother motion and higher idle time values. These findings highlight the accuracy and the motion stabilizing capability of the endovascular robotic system. CLINICAL IMPACT: Robotic assistance in the treatment of peripheral vascular disease is an emerging field and may be a tool for radiation protection and the geographic distribution of endovascular interventions in the future. This preclinical study compares the characteristics of manual and robotic-assisted carotid stenting (CAS). Our results highlight, that robotic-assisted CAS is associated with precise navigation and device positioning, and smoother navigation compared to manual CAS.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this proof-of-concept study was to demonstrate the setup and feasibility of transcarotid access for remote robotic neurointerventions in a cadaveric model. METHODS: The interventional procedures were performed in a fresh-frozen cadaveric model using an endovascular robotic system and a robotic angiography imaging system. A prototype remote, robotic-drive system with an ethernet-based network connectivity and audio-video communication system was used to drive the robotic system remotely. After surgical exposure of the common carotid artery in a cadaveric model, an 8-Fr arterial was inserted and anchored. A telescopic guiding sheath and catheter/microcatheter combination was modified to account for the "workable" length with the CorPath GRX robotic system using transcarotid access. RESULTS: To simulate a carotid stenting procedure, a 0.014-inch wire was advanced robotically to the extracranial internal carotid artery. After confirming the wire position and anatomy by angiography, a self-expandable rapid exchange nitinol stent was loaded into the robotic cassette, advanced, and then deployed robotically across the carotid bifurcation. To simulate an endovascular stroke recanalization procedure, a 0.014-inch wire was advanced into the proximal middle cerebral artery with robotic assistance. A modified 2.95-Fr delivery microcatheter (Velocity, Penumbra Inc.) was loaded into the robotic cassette and positioned. After robotic retraction of the wire, it was switched manually to a mechanical thrombectomy device (Solitaire X, Medtronic). The stentriever was then advanced robotically into the end of the microcatheter. After robotic unfolding and short microcatheter retraction, the microcatheter was manually removed and the stent retriever was extracted using robotic assistance. During intravascular navigation, the device position was guided by 2D angiography and confirmed by 3D cone-beam CT angiography. CONCLUSIONS: In this proof-of-concept cadaver study, the authors demonstrated the setup and technical feasibility of transcarotid access for remote robot-assisted neurointerventions such as carotid artery stenting and mechanical thrombectomy. Using transcarotid access, catheter length modifications were necessary to achieve "working length" compatibility with the current-generation CorPath GRX robotic system. While further improvements in dedicated robotic solutions for neurointerventions and next-generation thrombectomy devices are necessary, the transcarotid approach provides a direct, relatively rapid access route to the brain for delivering remote stroke treatment.