King's College London

Research portal

Comparison of robotic and manual implantation of intracerebral electrodes: a single-centre, single-blinded, randomised controlled trial

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Vejay N. Vakharia, Roman Rodionov, Anna Miserocchi, Andrew W. McEvoy, Aidan O’Keeffe, Alejandro Granados, Shahrzad Shapoori, Rachel Sparks, Sebastien Ourselin, John S. Duncan

Original languageEnglish
Article number17127
JournalScientific Reports
Volume11
Issue number1
DOIs
PublishedDec 2021

Bibliographical note

Funding Information: Wellcome Trust (WT106882) and Medtronic Inc. provided equipment support through an external research program application (ERP ref: 221). Publisher Copyright: © 2021, The Author(s). Copyright: Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.

King's Authors

Abstract

There has been a significant rise in robotic trajectory guidance devices that have been utilised for stereotactic neurosurgical procedures. These devices have significant costs and associated learning curves. Previous studies reporting devices usage have not undertaken prospective parallel-group comparisons before their introduction, so the comparative differences are unknown. We study the difference in stereoelectroencephalography electrode implantation time between a robotic trajectory guidance device (iSYS1) and manual frameless implantation (PAD) in patients with drug-refractory focal epilepsy through a single-blinded randomised control parallel-group investigation of SEEG electrode implantation, concordant with CONSORT statement. Thirty-two patients (18 male) completed the trial. The iSYS1 returned significantly shorter median operative time for intracranial bolt insertion, 6.36 min (95% CI 5.72–7.07) versus 9.06 min (95% CI 8.16–10.06), p = 0.0001. The PAD group had a better median target point accuracy 1.58 mm (95% CI 1.38–1.82) versus 1.16 mm (95% CI 1.01–1.33), p = 0.004. The mean electrode implantation angle error was 2.13° for the iSYS1 group and 1.71° for the PAD groups (p = 0.023). There was no statistically significant difference for any other outcome. Health policy and hospital commissioners should consider these differences in the context of the opportunity cost of introducing robotic devices. Trial registration: ISRCTN17209025 (https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN17209025).

View graph of relations

© 2020 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454