1
|
Anderson W, Ponce FA, Kinsman MJ, Sani S, Hwang B, Ghinda D, Kogan M, Mahoney JM, Amin DB, Van Horn M, McGuckin JP, Razo-Castaneda D, Bucklen BS. Robotic-Assisted Navigation for Stereotactic Neurosurgery: A Cadaveric Investigation of Accuracy, Time, and Radiation. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) 2023; 26:01787389-990000000-00991. [PMID: 38054727 PMCID: PMC11008650 DOI: 10.1227/ons.0000000000001024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/14/2023] [Accepted: 10/18/2023] [Indexed: 12/07/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Despite frequent use, stereotactic head frames require manual coordinate calculations and manual frame settings that are associated with human error. This study examines freestanding robot-assisted navigation (RAN) as a means to reduce the drawbacks of traditional cranial stereotaxy and improve targeting accuracy. METHODS Seven cadaveric human torsos with heads were tested with 8 anatomic coordinates selected for lead placement mirrored in each hemisphere. Right and left hemispheres of the brain were randomly assigned to either the traditional stereotactic arc-based (ARC) group or the RAN group. Both target accuracy and trajectory accuracy were measured. Procedural time and the radiation required for registration were also measured. RESULTS The accuracy of the RAN group was significantly greater than that of the ARC group in both target (1.2 ± 0.5 mm vs 1.7 ± 1.2 mm, P = .005) and trajectory (0.9 ± 0.6 mm vs 1.3 ± 0.9 mm, P = .004) measurements. Total procedural time was also significantly faster for the RAN group than for the ARC group (44.6 ± 7.7 minutes vs 86.0 ± 12.5 minutes, P < .001). The RAN group had significantly reduced time per electrode placement (2.9 ± 0.9 minutes vs 5.8 ± 2.0 minutes, P < .001) and significantly reduced radiation during registration (1.9 ± 1.1 mGy vs 76.2 ± 5.0 mGy, P < .001) compared with the ARC group. CONCLUSION In this cadaveric study, cranial leads were placed faster and with greater accuracy using RAN than those placed with conventional stereotactic arc-based technique. RAN also required significantly less radiation to register the specimen's coordinate system to the planned trajectories. Clinical testing should be performed to further investigate RAN for stereotactic cranial surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- William Anderson
- Department of Neurosurgery, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Francisco A. Ponce
- Department of Neurosurgery, Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
| | - Michael J. Kinsman
- Neurosurgery, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA
| | - Sepehr Sani
- Department of Neurosurgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Brian Hwang
- Department of Neurosurgery, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
- Current Affiliation: Orange County Neurosurgical Associates, Laguna Hills, California, USA
| | - Diana Ghinda
- Department of Neurosurgery, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Michael Kogan
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Jonathan M. Mahoney
- Musculoskeletal Education and Research Center, A Division of Globus Medical, Inc., Audubon, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Dhara B. Amin
- Musculoskeletal Education and Research Center, A Division of Globus Medical, Inc., Audubon, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Margaret Van Horn
- Musculoskeletal Education and Research Center, A Division of Globus Medical, Inc., Audubon, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Joshua P. McGuckin
- Musculoskeletal Education and Research Center, A Division of Globus Medical, Inc., Audubon, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Dominic Razo-Castaneda
- School of Biomedical Engineering, Science and Health Systems, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Brandon S. Bucklen
- Musculoskeletal Education and Research Center, A Division of Globus Medical, Inc., Audubon, Pennsylvania, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Trobisch P, Mahoney JM, Eichenlaub EK, Antonacci CL, Cuddihy L, Amin DB, Razo-Castaneda D, Orbach MR, McGuckin JP, Bucklen BS, Antonacci MD, Betz RR. An investigation of range of motion preservation in fusionless anterior double screw and cord constructs for scoliosis correction. Eur Spine J 2023; 32:1173-1186. [PMID: 36871254 DOI: 10.1007/s00586-023-07608-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/20/2022] [Revised: 02/10/2023] [Accepted: 02/13/2023] [Indexed: 03/06/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate the motion-preserving properties of vertebral body tethering with varying cord/screw constructs and cord thicknesses in cadaveric thoracolumbar spines. METHODS In vitro flexibility tests were performed on six fresh-frozen human cadaveric spines (T1-L5) (2 M, 4F) with a median age of 63 (59-to-80). An ± 8 Nm load was applied to determine range of motion (ROM) in flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR) in the thoracic and lumbar spine. Specimens were tested with screws (T5-L4) and without cords. Single (4.0 mm and 5.0 mm) and double (4.0 mm) cord constructs were sequentially tensioned to 100 N and tested: (1) Single 4.0 mm and (2) 5.0 mm cords (T5-T12); (3) Double 4.0 mm cords (T5-12); (4) Single 4.0 mm and (5) 5.0 mm cord (T12-L4); (6) Double 4.0 mm cords (T12-L4). RESULTS In the thoracic spine (T5-T12), 4.0-5.0 mm single-cord constructs showed slight reductions in FE and 27-33% reductions in LB compared to intact, while double-cord constructs showed reductions of 24% and 40%, respectively. In the lumbar spine (T12-L4), double-cord constructs had greater reductions in FE (24%), LB (74%), and AR (25%) compared to intact, while single-cord constructs exhibited reductions of 2-4%, 68-69%, and 19-20%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The present biomechanical study found similar motion for 4.0-5.0 mm single-cord constructs and the least motion for double-cord constructs in the thoracic and lumbar spine suggesting that larger diameter 5.0 mm cords may be a more promising motion-preserving option, due to their increased durability compared to smaller cords. Future clinical studies are necessary to determine the impact of these findings on patient outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Jonathan M Mahoney
- Musculoskeletal Education and Research Center, A Division of Globus Medical Inc., 2560 General Armistead Ave., Audubon, PA, 19403, USA
| | - Emily K Eichenlaub
- Musculoskeletal Education and Research Center, A Division of Globus Medical Inc., 2560 General Armistead Ave., Audubon, PA, 19403, USA
| | | | - Laury Cuddihy
- Institute for Spine and Scoliosis, Lawrenceville, NJ, USA
| | - Dhara B Amin
- Musculoskeletal Education and Research Center, A Division of Globus Medical Inc., 2560 General Armistead Ave., Audubon, PA, 19403, USA
| | - Dominic Razo-Castaneda
- School of Biomedical Engineering, Science and Health Systems, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA , USA
| | - Mattan R Orbach
- School of Biomedical Engineering, Science and Health Systems, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA , USA
| | - Joshua P McGuckin
- Musculoskeletal Education and Research Center, A Division of Globus Medical Inc., 2560 General Armistead Ave., Audubon, PA, 19403, USA.
| | - Brandon S Bucklen
- Musculoskeletal Education and Research Center, A Division of Globus Medical Inc., 2560 General Armistead Ave., Audubon, PA, 19403, USA
| | | | - Randal R Betz
- Institute for Spine and Scoliosis, Lawrenceville, NJ, USA
| |
Collapse
|