Literature DB >> 28498632

Robotic microlaryngeal phonosurgery: Testing of a "steady-hand" microsurgery platform.

Lee M Akst1, Kevin C Olds2,3, Marcin Balicki3, Preetham Chalasani3, Russell H Taylor3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate gains in microlaryngeal precision achieved by using a novel robotic "steady hand" microsurgery platform in performing simulated phonosurgical tasks. STUDY
DESIGN: Crossover comparative study of surgical performance and descriptive analysis of surgeon feedback.
METHODS: A novel robotic ear, nose, and throat microsurgery system (REMS) was tested in simulated phonosurgery. Participants navigated a 0.4-mm-wide microlaryngeal needle through spirals of varying widths, both with and without robotic assistance. Fail time (time the needle contacted spiral edges) was measured, and statistical comparison was performed. Participants were surveyed to provide subjective feedback on the REMS.
RESULTS: Nine participants performed the task at three spiral widths, yielding 27 paired testing conditions. In 24 of 27 conditions, robot-assisted performance was better than unassisted; five trials were errorless, all achieved with the robot. Paired analysis of all conditions revealed fail time of 0.769 ± 0.568 seconds manually, improving to 0.284 ± 0.584 seconds with the robot (P = .003). Analysis of individual spiral sizes showed statistically better performance with the REMS at spiral widths of 2 mm (0.156 ± 0.226 seconds vs. 0.549 ± 0.545 seconds, P = .019) and 1.5 mm (0.075 ± 0.099 seconds vs. 0.890 ± 0.518 seconds, P = .002). At 1.2 mm, all nine participants together showed similar performance with and without robotic assistance (0.621 ± 0.923 seconds vs. 0.868 ± 0.634 seconds, P = .52), though subgroup analysis of five surgeons most familiar with microlaryngoscopy showed statistically better performance with the robot (0.204 ± 0.164 seconds vs. 0.664 ± 0.354 seconds, P = .036).
CONCLUSIONS: The REMS is a novel platform with potential applications in microlaryngeal phonosurgery. Further feasibility studies and preclinical testing should be pursued as a bridge to eventual clinical use. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA. Laryngoscope, 128:126-132, 2018.
© 2017 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Microlaryngeal; microsurgery; phonosurgery; robot; robotic

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28498632     DOI: 10.1002/lary.26621

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Laryngoscope        ISSN: 0023-852X            Impact factor:   3.325


  4 in total

1.  Applied Force during Piston Prosthesis Placement in a 3D-Printed Model: Freehand vs Robot-Assisted Techniques.

Authors:  Christopher R Razavi; Paul R Wilkening; Rui Yin; Nicolas Lamaison; Russell H Taylor; John P Carey; Francis X Creighton
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2018-12-04       Impact factor: 3.497

2.  Real-time robotic airway measurement: An additional benefit of a novel steady-hand robotic platform.

Authors:  Christopher R Razavi; Francis X Creighton; Paul R Wilkening; Joseph Peine; Russell H Taylor; Lee M Akst
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2018-11-15       Impact factor: 3.325

3.  Volumetric Accuracy Analysis of Virtual Safety Barriers for Cooperative-Control Robotic Mastoidectomy.

Authors:  Andy S Ding; Sarah Capostagno; Christopher R Razavi; Zhaoshuo Li; Russell H Taylor; John P Carey; Francis X Creighton
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 2.619

4.  Is There Room for Microsurgery in Robotic Surgery?

Authors:  Jefferson Braga Silva; Catarina Vellinho Busnello; Matheus Ribeiro Cesarino; Luiza Fernandes Xavier; Leandro Totti Cavazzola
Journal:  Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2022-05-16
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.