| Literature DB >> 34421517 |
De-Feng Liu1, Huan-Guang Liu1,2, Kai Zhang1,2, Fan-Gang Meng1,2, An-Chao Yang1,2, Jian-Guo Zhang1,2,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This work aims to assess the effectiveness and safety of robotic assistance in ventriculoperitoneal shunting and to compare the results with data from traditional surgery.Entities:
Keywords: effectiveness; hydrocephalus; robot-assisted implantation; safety; ventriculoperitoneal shunting
Year: 2021 PMID: 34421517 PMCID: PMC8376146 DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2021.685142
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurosci ISSN: 1662-453X Impact factor: 4.677
FIGURE 1Videometric-tracked marker: it was capable of automatic patient-to-image registration, was adhered to the scalp in the preoperative and accompanied the patient for a CT scan; detected optical frame marker during surgery.
FIGURE 2Preoperative planning of robotic work platform: automatically calculate the 3D ventricle segmentation of the patient and plan the target and cranial path before surgery (the orange line represents the implanted drainage tube, the green line represents the safe distance for the drainage tube implantation, and the blue shape represents the ventricle of the patient).
FIGURE 3Intraoperative process: (A) surgical position: the patient was placed in the supine position, and the Mayfield headholder was positioned and secured to the trolley with a mechanical support arm; (B) surgeon drills a bone hole; (C) penetrate the dura using a monopolar electric knife; (D) implant drainage tube; (E) after implantation, the drainage tube was placed under the skin.
FIGURE 4Postoperative drainage tube reconstruction: postoperative image fusion, 3D reconstruction of the position of the intracranial drainage tube; the drainage tube is accurately implanted into the ventricle.
Comparison of the characteristics of patients in the robot-assisted and traditional surgery groups.
| Variables | Robot-assisted ventriculoperitoneal shunting ( | Traditional ventriculoperitoneal shunting ( | |
| Age ( | 24 ± 19.59 | 30.65 ± 19.46 | 0.218 |
| Gender, | 0.584 | ||
| Male | 9 (45%) | 21 (52.5%) | |
| Female | 11 (55%) | 19 (47.5%) |
Comparison of clinical characteristics in the robot-assisted and traditional surgery groups.
| Variables | Robot-assisted ventriculoperitoneal shunting ( | Traditional ventriculoperitoneal shunting ( | |
| Operation duration | 29.75 ± 6.38 min | 48.63 ± 6.60 min | 4.04034E-15 |
| Intraoperatve blood loss | 10.0 ± 3.98 ml | 22.25 ± 4.52 ml | 1.09E-14 |
| The hospitalization time | 3.5 ± 2.2 days | 4.2 ± 1.5 days | 0.12 |
| Successful rate of once puncture | 100% (20/20) | 77.5% (31/40) | |
| Bone hole diameter | 4.0 ± 0.3 mm | 11.0 ± 0.2 mm | |
| Surgery-related Complications | |||
| Puncture tract bleeding | 1 | 10 | |
| Infection | 0 | 3 | |
| Contact choroid plexus | 0 | 15 | |
| Accuracy | |||
| Radial error | 2.4 ± 1.5 mm | – | – |
| Axial error | 1.9 ± 2.1 mm | – | – |
FIGURE 5Postoperative CT in patients with small ventricles: robot-assisted drainage tube precision implantation.