Robot-assisted versus manual frame-based stereoelectroencephalography.

IF 3.5 2区医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY

Journal of neurosurgery Pub Date : 2025-04-25 DOI:10.3171/2025.1.JNS241118

Mahmoud Abdallat, Holger Joswig, Abdulrahman R Nazer, Muhammad Hammouri, Andrew G Parrent, Keith W MacDougall, Jorge G Burneo, David A Steven

{"title":"Robot-assisted versus manual frame-based stereoelectroencephalography.","authors":"Mahmoud Abdallat, Holger Joswig, Abdulrahman R Nazer, Muhammad Hammouri, Andrew G Parrent, Keith W MacDougall, Jorge G Burneo, David A Steven","doi":"10.3171/2025.1.JNS241118","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The aim of this study was to retrospectively compare robot-assisted and manual frame-based stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) with respect to timing, complications, and outcomes in a high-volume epilepsy surgery center.Methods: All patients with drug-resistant epilepsy who underwent SEEG from 2000 to 2020 were collected for a retrospective-and from 2017 onward, prospective-database.Results: A total of 192 SEEG procedures consisted of 88 robot-assisted and 104 manual frame-based cases. Both groups were of similar age, gender distribution, and duration of epilepsy. A mean of 10.9 electrodes were implanted for the robot-assisted group versus 9.3 electrodes in the manual frame-based group (p < 0.01) with a mean implantation time per electrode of 8.2 ± 3.4 versus 16.1 ± 7.7 minutes, respectively (p < 0.01). Complications were low in both groups; intracranial hemorrhage was observed in 6.8% and 5.8%, respectively.Conclusions: Using a stereotactic robot for SEEG electrode insertion can significantly decrease operative time.","PeriodicalId":16505,"journal":{"name":"Journal of neurosurgery","volume":" ","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of neurosurgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3171/2025.1.JNS241118","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to retrospectively compare robot-assisted and manual frame-based stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) with respect to timing, complications, and outcomes in a high-volume epilepsy surgery center.

Methods: All patients with drug-resistant epilepsy who underwent SEEG from 2000 to 2020 were collected for a retrospective-and from 2017 onward, prospective-database.

Results: A total of 192 SEEG procedures consisted of 88 robot-assisted and 104 manual frame-based cases. Both groups were of similar age, gender distribution, and duration of epilepsy. A mean of 10.9 electrodes were implanted for the robot-assisted group versus 9.3 electrodes in the manual frame-based group (p < 0.01) with a mean implantation time per electrode of 8.2 ± 3.4 versus 16.1 ± 7.7 minutes, respectively (p < 0.01). Complications were low in both groups; intracranial hemorrhage was observed in 6.8% and 5.8%, respectively.

Conclusions: Using a stereotactic robot for SEEG electrode insertion can significantly decrease operative time.

查看原文本刊更多论文

机器人辅助与手动基于框架的立体脑电图。

目的：本研究的目的是回顾性比较机器人辅助和手动基于框架的立体脑电图（SEEG）在大容量癫痫手术中心的时间、并发症和结果。方法：收集2000年至2020年接受SEEG治疗的所有耐药癫痫患者，建立回顾性数据库，并从2017年起建立前瞻性数据库。结果：总共192例SEEG手术包括88例机器人辅助和104例手动框架手术。两组患者年龄、性别分布和癫痫持续时间相似。机器人辅助组平均植入10.9个电极，手动支架组平均植入9.3个电极（p < 0.01），平均每个电极植入时间分别为8.2±3.4分钟和16.1±7.7分钟（p < 0.01）。两组并发症发生率均较低；颅内出血分别占6.8%和5.8%。结论：采用立体定向机器人植入SEEG电极可显著缩短手术时间。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of neurosurgery 医学-临床神经学

CiteScore

7.20

自引率

7.30%

发文量

1003

审稿时长

1 months

期刊介绍： The Journal of Neurosurgery, Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics, and Neurosurgical Focus are devoted to the publication of original works relating primarily to neurosurgery, including studies in clinical neurophysiology, organic neurology, ophthalmology, radiology, pathology, and molecular biology. The Editors and Editorial Boards encourage submission of clinical and laboratory studies. Other manuscripts accepted for review include technical notes on instruments or equipment that are innovative or useful to clinicians and researchers in the field of neuroscience; papers describing unusual cases; manuscripts on historical persons or events related to neurosurgery; and in Neurosurgical Focus, occasional reviews. Letters to the Editor commenting on articles recently published in the Journal of Neurosurgery, Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, and Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics are welcome.