Comparison of robotic and manual implantation of intracerebral electrodes: a single-centre, single-blinded, randomised controlled trial

Abstract There has been a significant rise in robotic trajectory guidance devices that have been utilised for stereotactic neurosurgical procedures. These devices have significant costs and associated learning curves. Previous studies reporting devices usage have not undertaken prospective parallel-...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Vejay N. Vakharia, Roman Rodionov, Anna Miserocchi, Andrew W. McEvoy, Aidan O’Keeffe, Alejandro Granados, Shahrzad Shapoori, Rachel Sparks, Sebastien Ourselin, John S. Duncan
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Nature Portfolio 2021
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/d16a8c5114074d2d860a1e1a0e6ab418
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:d16a8c5114074d2d860a1e1a0e6ab418
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:d16a8c5114074d2d860a1e1a0e6ab4182021-12-02T15:09:16ZComparison of robotic and manual implantation of intracerebral electrodes: a single-centre, single-blinded, randomised controlled trial10.1038/s41598-021-96662-42045-2322https://doaj.org/article/d16a8c5114074d2d860a1e1a0e6ab4182021-08-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-96662-4https://doaj.org/toc/2045-2322Abstract There has been a significant rise in robotic trajectory guidance devices that have been utilised for stereotactic neurosurgical procedures. These devices have significant costs and associated learning curves. Previous studies reporting devices usage have not undertaken prospective parallel-group comparisons before their introduction, so the comparative differences are unknown. We study the difference in stereoelectroencephalography electrode implantation time between a robotic trajectory guidance device (iSYS1) and manual frameless implantation (PAD) in patients with drug-refractory focal epilepsy through a single-blinded randomised control parallel-group investigation of SEEG electrode implantation, concordant with CONSORT statement. Thirty-two patients (18 male) completed the trial. The iSYS1 returned significantly shorter median operative time for intracranial bolt insertion, 6.36 min (95% CI 5.72–7.07) versus 9.06 min (95% CI 8.16–10.06), p = 0.0001. The PAD group had a better median target point accuracy 1.58 mm (95% CI 1.38–1.82) versus 1.16 mm (95% CI 1.01–1.33), p = 0.004. The mean electrode implantation angle error was 2.13° for the iSYS1 group and 1.71° for the PAD groups (p = 0.023). There was no statistically significant difference for any other outcome. Health policy and hospital commissioners should consider these differences in the context of the opportunity cost of introducing robotic devices. Trial registration: ISRCTN17209025 ( https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN17209025 ).Vejay N. VakhariaRoman RodionovAnna MiserocchiAndrew W. McEvoyAidan O’KeeffeAlejandro GranadosShahrzad ShapooriRachel SparksSebastien OurselinJohn S. DuncanNature PortfolioarticleMedicineRScienceQENScientific Reports, Vol 11, Iss 1, Pp 1-10 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Vejay N. Vakharia Roman Rodionov Anna Miserocchi Andrew W. McEvoy Aidan O’Keeffe Alejandro Granados Shahrzad Shapoori Rachel Sparks Sebastien Ourselin John S. Duncan Comparison of robotic and manual implantation of intracerebral electrodes: a single-centre, single-blinded, randomised controlled trial
description	Abstract There has been a significant rise in robotic trajectory guidance devices that have been utilised for stereotactic neurosurgical procedures. These devices have significant costs and associated learning curves. Previous studies reporting devices usage have not undertaken prospective parallel-group comparisons before their introduction, so the comparative differences are unknown. We study the difference in stereoelectroencephalography electrode implantation time between a robotic trajectory guidance device (iSYS1) and manual frameless implantation (PAD) in patients with drug-refractory focal epilepsy through a single-blinded randomised control parallel-group investigation of SEEG electrode implantation, concordant with CONSORT statement. Thirty-two patients (18 male) completed the trial. The iSYS1 returned significantly shorter median operative time for intracranial bolt insertion, 6.36 min (95% CI 5.72–7.07) versus 9.06 min (95% CI 8.16–10.06), p = 0.0001. The PAD group had a better median target point accuracy 1.58 mm (95% CI 1.38–1.82) versus 1.16 mm (95% CI 1.01–1.33), p = 0.004. The mean electrode implantation angle error was 2.13° for the iSYS1 group and 1.71° for the PAD groups (p = 0.023). There was no statistically significant difference for any other outcome. Health policy and hospital commissioners should consider these differences in the context of the opportunity cost of introducing robotic devices. Trial registration: ISRCTN17209025 ( https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN17209025 ).
format	article
author	Vejay N. Vakharia Roman Rodionov Anna Miserocchi Andrew W. McEvoy Aidan O’Keeffe Alejandro Granados Shahrzad Shapoori Rachel Sparks Sebastien Ourselin John S. Duncan
author_facet	Vejay N. Vakharia Roman Rodionov Anna Miserocchi Andrew W. McEvoy Aidan O’Keeffe Alejandro Granados Shahrzad Shapoori Rachel Sparks Sebastien Ourselin John S. Duncan
author_sort	Vejay N. Vakharia
title	Comparison of robotic and manual implantation of intracerebral electrodes: a single-centre, single-blinded, randomised controlled trial
title_short	Comparison of robotic and manual implantation of intracerebral electrodes: a single-centre, single-blinded, randomised controlled trial
title_full	Comparison of robotic and manual implantation of intracerebral electrodes: a single-centre, single-blinded, randomised controlled trial
title_fullStr	Comparison of robotic and manual implantation of intracerebral electrodes: a single-centre, single-blinded, randomised controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed	Comparison of robotic and manual implantation of intracerebral electrodes: a single-centre, single-blinded, randomised controlled trial
title_sort	comparison of robotic and manual implantation of intracerebral electrodes: a single-centre, single-blinded, randomised controlled trial
publisher	Nature Portfolio
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/d16a8c5114074d2d860a1e1a0e6ab418
work_keys_str_mv	AT vejaynvakharia comparisonofroboticandmanualimplantationofintracerebralelectrodesasinglecentresingleblindedrandomisedcontrolledtrial AT romanrodionov comparisonofroboticandmanualimplantationofintracerebralelectrodesasinglecentresingleblindedrandomisedcontrolledtrial AT annamiserocchi comparisonofroboticandmanualimplantationofintracerebralelectrodesasinglecentresingleblindedrandomisedcontrolledtrial AT andrewwmcevoy comparisonofroboticandmanualimplantationofintracerebralelectrodesasinglecentresingleblindedrandomisedcontrolledtrial AT aidanokeeffe comparisonofroboticandmanualimplantationofintracerebralelectrodesasinglecentresingleblindedrandomisedcontrolledtrial AT alejandrogranados comparisonofroboticandmanualimplantationofintracerebralelectrodesasinglecentresingleblindedrandomisedcontrolledtrial AT shahrzadshapoori comparisonofroboticandmanualimplantationofintracerebralelectrodesasinglecentresingleblindedrandomisedcontrolledtrial AT rachelsparks comparisonofroboticandmanualimplantationofintracerebralelectrodesasinglecentresingleblindedrandomisedcontrolledtrial AT sebastienourselin comparisonofroboticandmanualimplantationofintracerebralelectrodesasinglecentresingleblindedrandomisedcontrolledtrial AT johnsduncan comparisonofroboticandmanualimplantationofintracerebralelectrodesasinglecentresingleblindedrandomisedcontrolledtrial
_version_	1718387906003861504

Comparison of robotic and manual implantation of intracerebral electrodes: a single-centre, single-blinded, randomised controlled trial

Ejemplares similares