Advertisement

Stereotactic brain biopsy: evaluation of robot-assisted procedure in 60 patients

  • Laura TerrierEmail author
  • Vianney Gilard
  • Florent Marguet
  • Maxime Fontanilles
  • Stéphane Derrey
Original Article - Brain Tumors
  • 18 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Brain tumors
  2. Brain tumors

Abstract

Background

Frameless stereotactic biopsies, particularly robot-assisted procedures are increasing in neurosurgery centers. Results of these procedures should be at least equal to or greater than frame-based reference procedure. Evaluate robot-assisted technology is necessary in particular, when a team has chosen to switch from one to another method.

Objective

The objective of our prospective work was (i) to evaluate the success rate of contributive robotic-assisted biopsy in 60 patients, to report the morbidity and mortality associated with the procedure and (ii) to compare it with literature data.

Methods

We performed a prospective and descriptive study including 60 consecutive patients having had robotic-assisted stereotactic biopsy at the Rouen University Hospital, France. All patients had presurgical imaging before the procedure included Magnetic Resonance Imaging merged with Computed Tomography scan acquisition. Registration was mostly performed with a touch-free laser (57/60). A control Computed Tomography scan was always realized at day 0 or day 1 after surgery. Data collected were success rate, bleeding, clinical worsening, infection, and mortality.

Results

All the biopsies were considered as contributive and lead to the final diagnosis. In 41/60 patients (68%), the lesion was glial. Six in 60 patients (10%) had visible bleeding without clinical worsening related, 5/60 patients (8.5%) showed clinical impairment following surgery, which was permanent in 2 patients, and 1/60 patient presented generalized seizures. We did not report any infection and mortality.

Conclusion

Robot-assisted frameless surgery is efficient and provides a reasonable alternative to frame-based procedure. The operating time can be reduced, without increasing morbidity and mortality rates.

Keywords

Robot assisted  Stereotactic  Biopsy  Oncology  Brain 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Nikki Sabourin-Gibbs, Rouen University Hospital, for her help in editing the manuscript.

Author contributions

LT wrote the manuscript. VG was a major contributor in writing the manuscript. SD performed the surgeries and described and revised the manuscript. FM and MF supervised and revised the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the submitted manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Statement of informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Abernathey CD, Camacho A, Kelly PJ (1989) Stereotaxic suboccipital transcerebellar biopsy of pontine mass lesions. J Neurosurg 70(2):195–200Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Air EL, Leach JL, Warnick RE, McPherson CM (2009) Comparing the risks of frameless stereotactic biopsy in eloquent and noneloquent regions of the brain: a retrospective review of 284 cases. J Neurosurg 111:820–824Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Balossier A, Blond S, Reyns N (2016) Endoscopic versus stereotactic procedure for pineal tumor biopsies: focus on overall efficacy rate. World Neurosurg 92:223–228Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barnett GH, Miller DW, Weisenberger J (1999) Frameless stereotaxy with scalp-applied fiducial markers for brain biopsy procedures: experience in 218 cases. J Neurosurg 91:569–576Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bekelis K, Radwan TA, Desai A, Roberts DW (2012) Frameless robotically targeted stereotactic brain biopsy: feasibility, diagnostic yield, and safety. J Neurosurg 116:1002–1006Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Benabid AL, Cinquin P, Lavalle S, Le Bas JF, Demongeot J, De Rougemont J (1987) Computer-driven robot for stereotactic surgery connected to CT scan and magnetic resonance imaging: technological design and preliminary results. Appl Neurophysiol 50:153–154Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Benabid AL, Hoffmann D, Lavallee S, Cinquin P, Demongeot J, Le Bas JF (1991) Is there any future for robots in neurosurgery? Adv Tech Stand Neurosurg 18:3–45Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Benabid AL, Lavallee S, Hoffmann D, Cinquin P, Demongeot J, Danel F (1992) Potential use of robots in endoscopic neurosurgery. Acta Neurochir Suppl (Wien) 54:93–97Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bernays RL, Kollias SS, Khan N, Brandner S, Meier S, Yo-nekawa Y (2002) Histological yield, complications, and technological considerations in 114 consecutive frameless stereotactic biopsy procedures aided by open intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging. J Neurosurg 97:354–362Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bernstein M, Parrent AG (1994) Complications of CT-guided stereotactic biopsy of intra-axial brain lesions. J Neurosurg 81:165–168Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boviatsis EL, Kouyialis AT, Stranjalis G, Korfias S, Sakas DE (2003) CT-guided stereotactic biopsies of brain stem lesions: personal experience and literature review. Neurol Sci 24:97–107Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Coca HA, Cebula H, Benmekhbi M, Chenard MP, Entz-Werle N, Proust F (2016) Diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas in children: interest of robotic frameless assisted biopsy. A technical note. Neurochirurgie 62(6):327–331Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dammers R, Haitsma IK, Schouten JW, Kros JM, Avezaat CJJ, Vincent AJP (2008) Safety and efficacy of frameless and frame-based intracranial biopsy techniques. Acta Neurochir 150:23–29Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    De Benedictis A, Trezza A, Carai A, Genovese E, Procaccini E, Messina R (2017) Robot-assisted procedures in pediatric neurosurgery. Neurosurg Focus E7:10.3171Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dellaretti M, Reyns N, Touzet G, Dubois F, Gusmão S, Pereira JLB (2012) Stereotactic biopsy for brainstem tumors: comparison of transcerebellar with transfrontal approach. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 90:79–83Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dorward NL, Alberti O, Palmer JD, Kitchen ND, Thomas DG (1999) Accuracy of true frameless stereotaxy: in vivo measurement and laboratory phantom studies. Technical note. J Neurosurg 90:160–168Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dorward NL, Paleologos TS, Alberti O, Thomas DG (2002) The advantages of frameless stereotactic biopsy over frame-based biopsy. Br J Neurosurg 16:110–118Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Drake JM, Joy M, Goldenberg A, Kreindler D (1991) Computer and robot-assisted resection of thalamic astrocytomas in children. Neurosurgery 29:27–33Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eljamel M (2008) Robotic applications in neurosurgery. Med Robots 1:1–24Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Faria C, Erlhagen W, Rito M, De Momi E, Ferrigno G, Bicho E (2015) Review of robotic technology for stereotactic neurosurgery. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng 8:125–137Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Field M, Witham TF, Flickinger JC, Kondziolka D, Lunsford LD (2004) Comprehensive assessment of haemorrhage risks and outcomes after stereotactic brain biopsy. J Neurosurg 94:545–551Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Frank F, Fabrizi AP, Frank-Ricci R, Gaist G, Sedan R, Peragut GC (1988) Stereotactic biopsy and treatment of brain stem lesions: combined study of 33 cases (Bologna-Marseille). Acta Neurochir 42:177–181Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Frank F, Fabrizi AP, Frank-Ricci R, Gaist G, Sédan R, Peragut JC (1988) Stereotactic biopsy and treatment of brainstem lesions: combined study of 33 cases (Bologna-Marseille). Acta Neurochir Suppl (Wien) 42:177–181Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Frazier JL, Lee J, Thomale UW, Noggle JC, Cohen KJ, Jallo G (2009) Treatment of diffuse intrinsic brainstem gliomas: failed approaches and futures strategies. J Neurosurg Pediatr 3:259–269Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Giese H, Hoffmann KT, Winkelmann A, Stockhammer F, Jallo GI, Thomale UW (2010) Precision of navigated stereotactic probe implantation into the brainstem. J Neurosurg Pediatr 5(4):350–359Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Golfinos JG, Fitzpatrick BC, Smith LR, Spetzler RF (1995) Clinical use of a frameless stereotactic arm: results of 325 cases. J Neurosurg 1983:197–205Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gralla J, Nimsky C, Buchfelder M, Fahlbusch R, Ganslandt O (2003) Frameless stereotactic brain biopsy procedures using the Stealth Station: indications, accuracy and results. Zentralbl Neurochir 64:166–170Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Grimm F, Naros G, Gutenberg A, Keric N, Giese A, Gharabaghi A (2015) Blurring the boundaries between frame-based and frameless stereotaxy: feasibility study for brain biopsies performed with the use of a head-mounted robot. J Neurosurg 123:737–742Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Grossman R, Sadetzki S, Spiegelmann R, Ram Z (2005) Haemorrhagic complications and the incidence of asymptomatic bleeding associated with stereotactic brain biopsies. Acta Neurochir 147:627–631Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Guthrie BL, Steinberg GK, Adler JR (1989) Posterior fossa stereotaxic biopsy using the Brown-Roberts-Wells stereotaxic system. Neurosurgery 70:649–652Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Guy G, Jan M, Guégan Y, Aubin ML, Fischer C, Ben-Hassel M (1989) Surgical lesions of the brain stem. Neurochirurgie 1(35):1–133Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Haegelen C, Touzet G, Reyns N, Maurage CA, Ayachi M, Blond S (2010) Stereotactic robot-guided biopsies of brain stem lesions: experience with 15 cases. Neurochirurgie 56:363–367Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hood TW, Gebarski SS, McKeever PE, Venes JL (1986) Stereotaxic biopsy of intrinsic lesions of the brain stem. J Neurosurg 65:172–176Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lefranc M, Touzet G, Caron S, Maurage CA, Assaker R, Blond S (2011) Are stereotactic sample biopsies still of value in the modern management of pineal region tumours? Lessons from a single-department, retrospective series. Acta Neurochir 153:1111–1122Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lefranc M, Capel C, Pruvot AS, Fichten A, Desenclos C, Toussaint P (2014) The impact of the reference imaging modality, registration method and intraoperative flat-panel computed tomography on the accuracy of the ROSA® stereotactic robot. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 92:242–250Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lefranc M, Capel C, Pruvot-Occean AS, Fichten A, Desenclos C, Toussaint P (2015) Frameless robotic stereotactic biopsies: a consecutive series of 100 cases. J Neurosurg 122(2):342–352Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Louis DN, Ohgaki H, Wiestler OD, Cavenee WK (2016) World Health Organization histological classification of tumours of the central nervous system 2016. International Agency for Research on Cancer, FranceGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nathoo N, Cavuşoğlu MC, Vogelbaum MA, Barnett GH (2005) In touch with robotics: neurosurgery for the future. Neurosurgery 56:421–433Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rachinger W, Grau S, Holtmannspötter M (2009) Serial stereotactic biopsy of brainstem lesions in adults improves diagnostic accuracy compared with MRI only. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 80:1134–1139Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rajshekhar V, Chandy MJ (1995) Computerized tomography-guided stereotactic surgery for brain stem masses: a risk-benefit analysis of 71 patients. J Neurosurg 8:976–981Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Regis J, Bouillot P, Rouby-Volot F, Figarella-Branger D, Dufour H, Peragut J (1996) Pineal region tumours and the role of stereotactic biopsy: review of the mortality, morbidity, and diagnostic rates in 370 cases. Neurosurgery 39(5):907–914Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Roessler K, Ungersboeck K, Aichholzer M, Dietrich W, Goerzer H, Matula C (1998) Frameless stereotactic lesion contour-guided surgery using a computer-navigated microscope. Surg Neurol 49:282–289Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Roujeau T, Machado G, Garnett MR, Miquel C, Puget S (2007) Stereotactic biopsy of diffuse pontine lesions in children. J Neurosurg 107(1):1–4Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Samadani U, Stein S, Moonis G, Sonnad SS, Bonura P, Judy K (2006) Stereotactic biopsy of brain stem masses: decision analysis and literature review. Surg Neurol 66:484–491Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Smith JS, Quiñones-Hinojosa A, Barbaro NM, McDermott MW (2005) Frame-based stereotactic biopsy remains an important diagnostic tool with distinct advantages over frameless stereotactic biopsy. J Neuro-Oncol 73:173–179Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    St George EJ, Walsh AR, Sgouros S (2004) Stereotactic biopsy of brain tumours in the paediatric population. Childs Nerv Syst 20:163–167Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sutherland GR, Lama S, Gan LS, Wolfsberger S, Zereinia K (2013) Merging machines with microsurgery: clinical experience with neuroArm. J Neurosurg 118:521–529Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ulm AJ, Bova FJ, Friedman WA (2001) Stereotactic biopsy aided by a computer graphics workstation: experience with 200 consecutive cases. Surg Neurol 56:366–372Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Woodworth GF, McGirt MJ, Samdani A, Garonzik I, Olivi A, Weingart JD (2006) Frameless image-guided stereotactic brain biopsy procedure: diagnostic yield, surgical morbidity, and comparison with the frame-based technique. J Neurosurg 104:233–237Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Zamorano L, Li Q, Jain S, Kaur G (2004) Robotics in neurosurgery: state of the art and future technological challenges. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 1(1):7–22Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of NeurosurgeryRouen University HospitalRouenFrance
  2. 2.Department of PathologyRouen University HospitalRouenFrance
  3. 3.Department of OncologyRouen University HospitalRouenFrance
  4. 4.Department of Neurosurgery, Rouen University Hospital, Normandie UniversityUNIROUEN, INSERM UMR, 1073RouenFrance

Personalised recommendations