Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The comparative accuracy of the ROSA stereotactic robot across a wide range of clinical applications and registration techniques

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Robot-assisted stereotactic neurosurgery is an emerging technology with a growing range of applications. The ROSA system is a robotic stereotactic system that has been shown to be accurate in laboratory studies and large case series. The goal of this study was to examine the accuracy of the ROSA across different registration methods as well as different clinical applications. Sixteen patients with one hundred and seventeen stereotactic trajectories were examined. Accuracy was compared by measuring the distance between the trajectory target and the actual termination of the device as determined by imaging. Entry error and angular deviation were also measured. Variables included bone fiducials vs. laser facial scanning, the clinical indication for stereotactic surgery, and the effect of lead deflection on accuracy. Bone fiducials did not offer an accuracy benefit over laser facial scanning (mean target error 4.5–3.9 mm, p = 0.34) in these clinical scenarios. Laser interstitial thermal therapy, responsive neurostimulation, and stereo electroencephalography were equally accurate when placed by the ROSA (mean target error 4.4–4.3–4.0 mm, respectively, p = 0.69). Deflection did not affect lead accuracy (mean target error 4.4–3.9 mm, p = 0.11). Similar results are seen for entry error and angular deviation. ROSA is a highly accurate stereotactic system. Laser facial scanning provides the same accuracy as bone fiducials in these stereotactic applications. The ROSA is equally accurate across a wide spectrum of applications. The ROSA is effective at limiting lead deflection, and when it does occur, it does not impact target accuracy in a significant way.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Curry DJ, Gowda A, McNichols RJ, Wilfong AA (2012) MR-guided stereotactic laser ablation of epileptogenic foci in children. Epilepsy Behav 24:408–414

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. LeWitt PA, Rezai AR, Leehey MA, Ojemann SG, Flaherty AW, Eskandar EN et al (2011) AAV2-GAD gene therapy for advanced Parkinson’s disease: a double-blind, sham-surgery controlled, randomised trial. Lancet Neurol 10:309–319

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Youngerman BE, Chan AK, Mikell CB, McKhann GM, Sheth SA (2016) A decade of emerging indications: deep brain stimulation in the United States. J Neurosurg 125:461–471

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mascott CR, Sol J-C, Bousquet P, Lagarrigue J, Lazorthes Y, Lauwers-Cances V (2006) Quantification of true in vivo (application) accuracy in cranial image-guided surgery: influence of mode of patient registration. Neurosurgery 59:ONS146–ONS156 (discussion ONS146–56)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Brandmeir N, Acharya V, Sather M (2016) Robot assisted stereotactic laser ablation for a radiosurgery resistant hypothalamic hamartoma. Cureus 8:e581

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Chan AY, Tran DKT, Gill AS, Hsu FPK, Vadera S (2016) Stereotactic robot-assisted MRI-guided laser thermal ablation of radiation necrosis in the posterior cranial fossa: technical note. Neurosurg Focus 41:E5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. González-Martínez J, Bulacio J, Thompson S, Gale J, Smithason S, Najm I et al (2016) Technique, results, and complications related to robot-assisted stereoelectroencephalography. Neurosurgery 78:169–180

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gonzalez-Martinez J, Vadera S, Mullin J, Enatsu R, Alexopoulos A, Patwardhan R et al (2014) Robot-assisted stereotactic laser ablation in medically intractable epilepsy: operative technique. Neurosurgery 10:167–173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lefranc M, Le Gars D (2012) Robotic implantation of deep brain stimulation leads, assisted by intra-operative, flat-panel CT. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 154:2069–2074

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Lefranc M, Capel C, Pruvot-Occean A-S, Fichten A, Desenclos C, Toussaint P et al (2015) Frameless robotic stereotactic biopsies: a consecutive series of 100 cases. J Neurosurg 122:342–352

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Vadera S, Chan A, Lo T, Gill A, Phielipp NM, Hermanowicz N et al (2015) Frameless stereotactic robot-assisted subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation: case report. World Neurosurg. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2015.11.009

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lefranc M, Capel C, Pruvot AS, Fichten A, Desenclos C, Toussaint P et al (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 92:242–250

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Husstedt H, Heermann R, Becker H (1999) Contribution of low-dose CT-scan protocols to the total positioning error in computer-assisted surgery. Comput Aided Surg 4:275–280

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Zhou C, Anschuetz L, Weder S, Xie L, Caversaccio M, Weber S et al (2016) Surface matching for high-accuracy registration of the lateral skull base. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 11:2097–2103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kristin J, Mucha D, Schipper J, Klenzner T (2012) Registration strategies for the application of the navigation system Fiagon at the lateral scull base. Laryngorhinootologie 91:306–310

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Smith TR, Mithal DS, Stadler JA, Asgarian C, Muro K, Rosenow JM (2014) Impact of fiducial arrangement and registration sequence on target accuracy using a phantom frameless stereotactic navigation model. J Clin Neurosci 21:1976–1980

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Steinmeier R, Rachinger J, Kaus M, Ganslandt O, Huk W, Fahlbusch R (2000) Factors influencing the application accuracy of neuronavigation systems. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 75:188–202

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Nauta HJ (1994) Error assessment during “image guided” and “imaging interactive” stereotactic surgery. Comput Med Imaging Graph 18:279–287

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, USA

    Nicholas J. Brandmeir, Sandip Savaliya, Pratik Rohatgi & Michael Sather

Authors
  1. Nicholas J. Brandmeir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sandip Savaliya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pratik Rohatgi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael Sather
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicholas J. Brandmeir.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There are no funding sources to disclose for this work. Dr. Sather serves as a proctor for NeuroPace, Inc., educating surgeons on implantation technique; the other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Ethical approval

This work was a review of an existing quality improvement database; research was done in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brandmeir, N.J., Savaliya, S., Rohatgi, P. et al. The comparative accuracy of the ROSA stereotactic robot across a wide range of clinical applications and registration techniques. J Robotic Surg 12, 157–163 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-017-0712-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-017-0712-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation