A new tool for touch-free patient registration for robot-assisted intracranial surgery: application accuracy from a phantom study and a retrospective surgical series.

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of Neurolocate frameless registration system and frame-based registration for robotic stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG). METHODS The authors performed a 40-trajectory phantom laboratory study and a 127-trajectory retrospective analysis of a surgical series. The laboratory study was aimed at testing the noninferiority of the Neurolocate system. The analysis of the surgical series compared Neurolocate-based SEEG implantations with a frame-based historical control group. RESULTS The mean localization errors (LE) ± standard deviations (SD) for Neurolocate-based and frame-based trajectories were 0.67 ± 0.29 mm and 0.76 ± 0.34 mm, respectively, in the phantom study (p = 0.35). The median entry point LE was 0.59 mm (interquartile range [IQR] 0.25-0.88 mm) for Neurolocate-registration-based trajectories and 0.78 mm (IQR 0.49-1.08 mm) for frame-registration-based trajectories (p = 0.00002) in the clinical study. The median target point LE was 1.49 mm (IQR 1.06-2.4 mm) for Neurolocate-registration-based trajectories and 1.77 mm (IQR 1.25-2.5 mm) for frame-registration-based trajectories in the clinical study. All the surgical procedures were successful and uneventful. CONCLUSIONS The results of the phantom study demonstrate the noninferiority of Neurolocate frameless registration. The results of the retrospective surgical series analysis suggest that Neurolocate-based procedures can be more accurate than the frame-based ones. The safety profile of Neurolocate-based registration should be similar to that of frame-based registration. The Neurolocate system is comfortable, noninvasive, easy to use, and potentially faster than other registration devices.

[1]  Kumar Abhinav,et al.  Use of robot-guided stereotactic placement of intracerebral electrodes for investigation of focal epilepsy: initial experience in the UK , 2013, British journal of neurosurgery.

[2]  Abhilash Pandya,et al.  The application accuracy of the NeuroMate robot--A quantitative comparison with frameless and frame-based surgical localization systems. , 2002, Computer aided surgery : official journal of the International Society for Computer Aided Surgery.

[3]  Nadia Colombo,et al.  Focal cortical resection in malformations of cortical development. , 2003, Epileptic disorders : international epilepsy journal with videotape.

[4]  Francesco Cardinale,et al.  SEEG, Happy Anniversary! , 2016, World Neurosurgery.

[5]  Juan Bulacio,et al.  Technique, Results, and Complications Related to Robot-Assisted Stereoelectroencephalography. , 2016, Neurosurgery.

[6]  Juan Bulacio,et al.  The stereotactic approach for mapping epileptic networks: a prospective study of 200 patients. , 2014, Journal of neurosurgery.

[7]  Jorge Gonzalez-Martinez,et al.  Is SEEG safe? A systematic review and meta‐analysis of stereo‐electroencephalography–related complications , 2016, Epilepsia.

[8]  Gabriele Arnulfo,et al.  Stereoelectroencephalography: surgical methodology, safety, and stereotactic application accuracy in 500 procedures. , 2013, Neurosurgery.

[9]  T. Varma,et al.  Use of the NeuroMate stereotactic robot in a frameless mode for functional neurosurgery , 2006, The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS.

[10]  A. Benabid,et al.  Presurgical strategies and epilepsy surgery in children: comparison of literature and personal experiences , 1999, Child's Nervous System.

[11]  Philippe Ryvlin,et al.  Epilepsy: new advances , 2015, The Lancet.

[12]  F. Cardinale Stereoelectroencephalography: Application Accuracy, Efficacy, and Safety. , 2016, World neurosurgery.

[13]  Jean Gotman,et al.  Diagnostic utility of invasive EEG for epilepsy surgery: Indications, modalities, and techniques , 2016, Epilepsia.

[14]  Denys Fontaine,et al.  In vivo measurement of the frame-based application accuracy of the Neuromate neurosurgical robot. , 2015, Journal of neurosurgery.

[15]  G. Dorfmüller,et al.  Outcome of surgery in children with focal cortical dysplasia younger than 5 years explored by stereo-electroencephalography , 2014, Child's Nervous System.

[16]  Francesco Cardinale,et al.  Cerebral Angiography for Multimodal Surgical Planning in Epilepsy Surgery: Description of a New Three-Dimensional Technique and Literature Review. , 2015, World neurosurgery.

[17]  Francesco Cardinale,et al.  Implantation of Stereoelectroencephalography Electrodes: A Systematic Review , 2016, Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society.

[18]  Fabrice Bartolomei,et al.  Stereoelectroencephalography in presurgical assessment of MRI-negative epilepsy. , 2007, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[19]  G. Kronreif,et al.  A novel miniature robotic guidance device for stereotactic neurosurgical interventions: preliminary experience with the iSYS1 robot. , 2017, Journal of neurosurgery.

[20]  Thomas Czech,et al.  A novel miniature robotic device for frameless implantation of depth electrodes in refractory epilepsy. , 2017, Journal of neurosurgery.

[21]  W T Blume,et al.  A randomized, controlled trial of surgery for temporal-lobe epilepsy. , 2001, The New England journal of medicine.

[22]  H. Hamer,et al.  A Frameless Stereotactic Implantation Technique for Depth Electrodes in Refractory Epilepsy Using Intraoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging. , 2016, World neurosurgery.

[23]  Patrick Toussaint,et al.  The Impact of the Reference Imaging Modality, Registration Method and Intraoperative Flat-Panel Computed Tomography on the Accuracy of the ROSA® Stereotactic Robot , 2014, Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery.