Frame-based versus robot-assisted stereo-electro-encephalography for drug-resistant epilepsy

Background Stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) is an effective presurgical invasive evaluation for drug-resistant epilepsies. The introduction of robotic devices provides a simplified, accurate, and safe alternative to the conventional SEEG technique. We report our institutional experience with robo...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Acta neurochirurgica 2024-02, Vol.166 (1), p.85-85, Article 85
Hauptverfasser: Han, Chang-Lin, Chou, Chien-Chen, Chen, Hsin-Hung, Chen, Yi-Hsiu, Lin, Chun-Fu, Chen, Chien, Yu, Hsiang-Yu, Chen, Yu-Wei, Lee, Cheng-Chia
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) is an effective presurgical invasive evaluation for drug-resistant epilepsies. The introduction of robotic devices provides a simplified, accurate, and safe alternative to the conventional SEEG technique. We report our institutional experience with robot-assisted SEEG and compare its in vivo accuracy, operation efficiency, and safety with the more traditional SEEG workflow. Methods All patients with medically refractory focal epilepsy who underwent SEEG depth electrode implantation between 2014 and 2022 were included in this study. Technical advancements of the robot-assisted technique are described. Analyses of patient demographics, electrode implantation accuracy, operation time, and procedure-related complications were performed. Results One hundred and sixty-six patients underwent 167 SEEG procedures. The first 141 procedures were performed using a conventional approach involving a Leksell stereotactic system, and the last 26 procedures were robot-assisted. Among the 1726 depth electrodes that were inserted, the median entry point localization error was as follows: conventional (1.0 mm; range, 0.1–33.5 mm) and robot-assisted (1.1 mm; range, 0–4.8 mm) ( P  = 0.17). The median target point localization error was as follows: conventional (2.8 mm; range, 0.1–49 mm) and robot-assisted (1.8 mm; range, 0–30.3 mm) ( P  
ISSN:0942-0940
0001-6268
0942-0940
DOI:10.1007/s00701-024-05983-6