Vakharia, V;
Rodionov, R;
Miserocchi, A;
McEvoy, A;
O'Keeffe, A;
Granados, A;
Shapoori, S;
... Duncan, J; + view all
(2021)
Comparison of Robotic and Manual Implantation of Intracerebral Electrodes: A Single-Centre, Single-Blinded, Randomised Controlled Trial.
Research Square
Preview |
Text
Vakharia_vvRCTmanuscript_Scientific_Reports_clean.pdf Download (557kB) | Preview |
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), ratio of median estimate (iSYS1/PAD) 0.70 (95%CI 0.61-0.81), 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 o for the iSYS1 group and 1.71 o 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)
Archive Staff Only
 |
View Item |
