An Automated Robotic Approach with Redundant Navigation for Minimal Invasive Extended Transsphenoidal Skull Base Surgery

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background: The aim of this work was to determine the feasibility of a robotic-assisted and fully automated approach to the sphenoid sinus. An image-guided robotic system was designed to address potential human errors in performing transsphenoidal sinus surgery by combining the reproducible accuracy of a robotic system with standard computer navigation. Methods: A six-degrees of freedom robotic assistance system and an opto-electrical navigation system were combined for image-guided assistance with redundantly controlled robotics. Newly designed endoscopic instruments for robotic surgery have been developed and are described. Telemanipulatory, as well as fully automated procedures, were tested on cadaveric heads as part of a preclinical trial. Results: A fully automated sphenoidotomy as well as a telemanipulatory sphenoidectomy were performed successfully on cadaveric heads. Intraoperative performance, accuracy assessment studies, as well as possible sources of stereotactic offsets are described. The mean measured robotic reproducibility accuracy was 0.056 mm (range: 0.02 - 0.14 mm) and the mean overall navigated robotic accuracy, including all transformation and registration errors was 1.53 mm (range: 1.13 - 1.89 mm) respectively. Conclusion: A system for robot-guided surgery in combination with redundant navigational control was developed. It allows highly accurate maneuvers, performed either in a telemanipulation mode as master-slave system or in a fully automated fashion. A sphenoidectomy on cadaveric heads was performed in both telemanipulation and fully automated modes. The overall intraoperative accuracy was in the range of the resolution of the CT images and stereotactic offsets were caused mainly due to deflections of the endoscopic operating instrument.

References

• 1 Laws E R Jr. Vascular complications of transsphenoidal surgery.  Pituitary. 1999;  2 163-170
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Ciric I, Ragin A, Baumgartner C, Pierce D. Complications of transsphenoidal surgery: results of a national survey, review of the literature, and personal experience.  Neurosurgery. 1997;  40 225-236; discussion: 236 - 237
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Buchfelder M, Fahlbusch R. Komplikationen bei Operationen von Hypophysenadenomen. In: Bock W, Schirmer M (Eds), Komplikationen bei neurochirurgischen Eingriffen. München: Zuckschwerdt 1988: 18-32
  Google Scholar
• 4 Jho H D, Alfieri A. Endoscopic endonasal pituitary surgery: evolution of surgical technique and equipment in 150 operations.  Minim Invas Neurosurg. 2001;  44 1-12
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Jho H D. Endoscopic endonasal approach to the optic nerve: a technical note.  Minim Invas Neurosurg. 2001;  44 190-193
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Cappabianca P, Cavallo L M, Colao A, Del Basso De Caro M, Esposito F, Cirillo S, Lombardi G, de Divitiis E. Endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach: outcome analysis of 100 consecutive procedures.  Minim Invas Neurosurg. 2002;  45 193-200
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Perneczky A, Fries G. Endoscope-assisted brain surgery: part 1 - evolution, basic concept, and current technique.  Neurosurgery. 1998;  42 219-224; discussion: 224 - 225
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Fries G, Perneczky A. Endoscope-assisted brain surgery: part 2 - analysis of 380 procedures.  Neurosurgery. 1998;  42 226-231; discussion: 231 - 232
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Kavanagh K T. Applications of image-directed robotics in otolaryngologic surgery.  Laryngoscope. 1994;  104 (3 Pt 1) 283-293
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Matsen 3rd F A, Garbini J L, Sidles J A, Pratt B, Baumgarten D, Kaiura R. Robotic assistance in orthopaedic surgery. A proof of principle using distal femoral arthroplasty.  Clin Orthop. 1993;  296 178-186
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Mathias J M. Robot helps surgeons perform hip surgery.  OR Manager. 1993;  9 10-11
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Haus B M, Kambham N, Le D, Moll F M, Gourin C, Terris D J. Surgical robotic applications in otolaryngology.  Laryngoscope. 2003;  113 1139-1144
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Federspil P A, Plinkert P K. Robotic surgery in otorhinolaryngology.  Otolaryngol Pol. 2004;  58 237-242
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Federspil P A, Plinkert B, Plinkert P K. Experimental robotic milling in skull-base surgery.  Comput Aided Surg. 2003;  8 42-48
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Nimsky C, Rachinger J, Iro H, Fahlbusch R. Adaptation of a hexapod-based robotic system for extended endoscope-assisted transsphenoidal skull base surgery.  Minim Invas Neurosurg. 2004;  47 41-46
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Varma T R, Eldridge P R, Forster A, Fox S, Fletcher N, Steiger M, Littlechild P, Byrne P, Sinnott A, Tyler K, Flintham S. Use of the NeuroMate stereotactic robot in a frameless mode for movement disorder surgery.  Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. 2003;  80 132-135
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Goto T, Hongo K, Kakizawa Y, Muraoka H, Miyairi Y, Tanaka Y, Kobayashi S. Clinical application of robotic telemanipulation system in neurosurgery. Case report.  J Neurosurg. 2003;  99 1082-1084
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Zimmermann M, Krishnan R, Raabe A, Seifert V. Robot-assisted navigated neuroendoscopy.  Neurosurgery. 2002;  51 1446-1451; discussion: 1451 - 1452
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Strauss G, Winkler D, Trantakis C, Schulz T, Meixensberger J. Post-processing of radiological data for preoperative planning in skull base surgery.  Laryngorhinootologie. 2004;  83 157-163
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar

Klaus Bumm,M. D. 

Department of Otorhinolaryngology · Head & Neck Surgery · University of Erlangen-Nuremberg

Waldstrasse 1

91054 Erlangen

Germany

Phone: +49-9131-853-3156 ·

Fax: +49-9131-853-3883

Email: klaus.bumm@hno.imed.uni-erlangen.de