A Comparation Between Frame-Based and Robot-Assisted in Stereotactic Biopsy

Abstract

IntroductionFrame-based stereotactic biopsy is well-established to play an essential role in neurosurgery. In recent years, different robotic devices have been introduced in neurosurgery centers. This study aimed to compare the SINO surgical robot-assisted frameless brain biopsy with standard frame-based stereotactic biopsy in terms of efficacy, accuracy and complications.MethodsA retrospective analysis was performed on 151 consecutive patients who underwent stereotactic biopsy at Chongqing Sanbo Jiangling Hospital between August 2017 and December 2021. All patients were divided into the frame-based group (n = 47) and the SINO surgical robot-assisted group (n = 104). The data collected included clinical characteristics, diagnostic yield, operation times, accuracy, and postoperative complications.ResultsThere was no significant difference in diagnostic yield between the frame-based group and the SINO surgical robot-assisted group (95.74 vs. 98.08%, p > 0.05). The mean operation time in the SINO surgical robot-assisted group was significantly shorter than in the frame-based group (29.36 ± 13.64 vs. 50.57 ± 41.08 min). The entry point error in the frame-based group was significantly higher than in the robot-assisted group [1.33 ± 0.40 mm (0.47–2.30) vs. 0.92 ± 0.27 mm (0.35–1.65), P < 0.001]. The target point error in the frame-based group was also significantly higher than in the robot-assisted group [1.63 ± 0.41 mm (0.74–2.65) vs. 1.10 ± 0.30 mm (0.69–2.03), P < 0.001]. Finally, there was no significant difference in postoperative complications between the two groups.ConclusionRobot-assisted brain biopsy becomes an increasingly mainstream tool in the neurosurgical procedure. The SINO surgical robot-assisted platform is as efficient, accurate and safe as standard frame-based stereotactic biopsy and provides a reasonable alternative to stereotactic biopsy in neurosurgery.

Neurosurgical robots in China: State of the art and future prospect

“…compared 47 patients with traditional frame brain biopsy and 104 patients with Sinovation SR1 robot-assisted brain biopsy, and made statistical analysis on the efficacy, accuracy and complications of the biopsy. 42 The results showed that there was no significant difference in the diagnostic rate between the frame-based group and the Sinovation SR1 robot-assisted group (95.74% vs. 98.08%, p > 0.05). The mean operation time of the Sinovation SR1 robot-assisted group was significantly shorter than that of the frame-based group (29.36 ± 13.64 vs. 50.57 ± 41.08 min, p < 0.01).…”

“…41 Sinovation SR1 1.4 (0.4–9.3) ＞0.05 8.0 (5.9–12.8) <0.01 Frame 1.4 (0.0–4.6) 14.7 (10.3–18.5) Biopsy Hu et al. 42 Sinovation SR1 1.10 ± 0.30 (0.69–2.03) <0.05 29.36 ± 13.64min <0.05 Frame 1.63 ± 0.41 (0.74–2.65) 50.57 ± 41.08 min Wu et al. 43 Remebot – – 80.1 ± 12.3 <0.01 Frame – 116.5 ± 14.1 …”

Preliminary clinical application of multimodal imaging combined with frameless robotic stereotactic biopsy in the diagnosis of primary central nervous system lymphoma

“…Remebot robot-assisted frameless brain biopsy is easy to use and better accepted by patients than frame-based biopsy. Frameless biopsy is associated with shorter procedural times relative to frame-based biopsy, and it may have wider indications in brain biopsy due to its high flexibility [ 34 , 35 ].…”

Advances, technological innovations, and future prospects in stereotactic brain biopsies

“…A limitation of this study was that they compared two frameless robotic and image-guided surgery systems to prove the efficiency and safety of robotic surgery without a frame-based control group. In another study, Hu et al compared the SINO (Sinovation Medical Technology Co., Ltd., Beijing, China) surgical robot-assisted frameless brain biopsy with standard frame-based stereotactic biopsy in terms of efficacy, accuracy, and complications [ 22 ]. Although there was no significant difference in diagnostic yield and postbiopsy complications between the frame-based group and the SINO robot-assisted group, the entry and target point errors were smaller in the robot-assisted group.…”