Download PDF
J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2017; 78(05): 385-392
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1602791
Original Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Performance of Robotic Assistance for Skull Base Biopsy: A Phantom Study

Jian-Hua Zhu
1   Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Haidian District, Beijing, People's Republic of China
,
Jing Wang
1   Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Haidian District, Beijing, People's Republic of China
,
Yong-Gui Wang
2   Intelligent Robotics Institute, Beijing Institute of Technology, Haidian District, Beijing, People's Republic of China
,
Meng Li
2   Intelligent Robotics Institute, Beijing Institute of Technology, Haidian District, Beijing, People's Republic of China
,
Yu-Xing Guo
1   Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Haidian District, Beijing, People's Republic of China
,
Xiao-Jing Liu
1   Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Haidian District, Beijing, People's Republic of China
,
Chuan-Bin Guo
1   Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Haidian District, Beijing, People's Republic of China
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

27 October 2016

21 March 2017

Publication Date:
03 May 2017 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives This study aims to evaluate the feasibility of a custom robot system guided by optical cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based navigation for skull base biopsy.

Design An accuracy study was conducted.

Setting Platform for navigation and robot-aided surgery technology.

Participants Phantom skull.

Main Outcome Measures The primary outcome measure was to investigate the accuracy of robot-assisted needle biopsy for skull base tumors. A 14-gauge needle was automatically inserted by the five degrees of freedom robot into the intended target, guided by optical navigation. The result was displayed on the graphical user interface after matrix transformation. Postoperative image scanning was performed, and the result was verified with image fusion.

Results All 20 interventions were successfully performed. The mean deviation of the needle tip was 0.56 ± 0.22 mm (measured by the navigation system) versus 1.73 ± 0.60 mm (measured by image fusion) (p < 0.05). The mean insertion depth was 52.3 mm (range: 49.7–55.2 mm). The mean angular deviations off the x-axis, y-axis, and z-axis were 1.51 ± 0.67, 2.33 ± 1.65, and 1.47 ± 1.16 degrees, respectively.

Conclusions The experimental results show the robot system is efficient, reliable, and safe. The navigation accuracy is a significant factor in robotic procedures.

Keywords

robotics - image-guided biopsy - skull base - navigation

Note

Prof. Chuan-Bin Guo and Dr. Xiao-Jing Liu contributed equally to the article.


 

  • References

  • 1 Kronreif G, Fürst M, Kettenbach J, Figl M, Hanel R. Robotic guidance for percutaneous interventions. Adv Robot 2003; 17 (06) 541-560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Masamune K, Fichtinger G, Patriciu A. , et al. System for robotically assisted percutaneous procedures with computed tomography guidance. Comput Aided Surg 2001; 6 (06) 370-383
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Masamune M, Hong J. Advanced imaging and robotics technologies for medical applications. Int J Optomechatronics 2011; 5 (04) 299-321
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kim H, Park CM, Lee SM, Goo JM. C-arm cone-beam CT virtual navigation-guided percutaneous mediastinal mass biopsy: diagnostic accuracy and complications. Eur Radiol 2015; 25 (12) 3508-3517
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Maan ZN, Gibbins N, Al-Jabri T, D'Souza AR. The use of robotics in otolaryngology-head and neck surgery: a systematic review. Am J Otolaryngol 2012; 33 (01) 137-146
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Cleary K, Melzer A, Watson V, Kronreif G, Stoianovici D. Interventional robotic systems: applications and technology state-of-the-art. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 2006; 15 (02) 101-113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Koethe Y, Xu S, Velusamy G, Wood BJ, Venkatesan AM. Accuracy and efficacy of percutaneous biopsy and ablation using robotic assistance under computed tomography guidance: a phantom study. Eur Radiol 2014; 24 (03) 723-730
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Solomon SB, Patriciu A, Bohlman ME, Kavoussi LR, Stoianovici D. Robotically driven interventions: a method of using CT fluoroscopy without radiation exposure to the physician. Radiology 2002; 225 (01) 277-282
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 De Ceulaer J, De Clercq C, Swennen GR. Robotic surgery in oral and maxillofacial, craniofacial and head and neck surgery: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012; 41 (11) 1311-1324
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Caversaccio M, Zulliger D, Bächler R, Nolte LP, Häusler R. Practical aspects for optimal registration (matching) on the lateral skull base with an optical frameless computer-aided pointer system. Am J Otol 2000; 21 (06) 863-870
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Luebbers HT, Messmer P, Obwegeser JA. , et al. Comparison of different registration methods for surgical navigation in cranio-maxillofacial surgery. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2008; 36 (02) 109-116
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Besl PJ, Mckay HD. A method for registration of 3-D shapes. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 1992; 14: 239-256
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Masuda T, Yokoya N. A robust method for registration and segmentation of multiple range images. Comput Vis Image Und 1995; 61: 295-307
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Bae KH, Lichti D. A method for automated registration of unorganised point clouds. ISPRS J Photogramm 2008; 63 (01) 36-54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Umeyama S. Least-squares estimation of transformation parameters between twopoint patterns. IEEE T Pattern Anal 1991; 13 (04) 376-380
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Xu N, Ahuja N, Bansal R. Object segmentation using graph cuts based active contours. Comput Vis Image Und 2007; 107: 210-224
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Korb W, Kornfeld M, Birkfellner W. , et al. Risk analysis and safety assessment in surgical robotics: a case study on a biopsy robot. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 2005; 14 (01) 23-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Abolhassani N, Patel R, Moallem M. Needle insertion into soft tissue: a survey. Med Eng Phys 2007; 29 (04) 413-431
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Zhou Y, Thiruvalluvan K, Krzeminski L, Moore WH, Xu Z, Liang Z. CT-guided robotic needle biopsy of lung nodules with respiratory motion - experimental system and preliminary test. Int J Med Robot 2013; 9 (03) 317-330
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Dogangil G, Davies BL, Rodriguez y Baena F. A review of medical robotics for minimally invasive soft tissue surgery. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2010; 224 (05) 653-679
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Kettenbach J, Kronreif G, Figl M. , et al. Robot-assisted biopsy using computed tomography-guidance: initial results from in vitro tests. Invest Radiol 2005; 40 (04) 219-228
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Tovar-Arriaga S, Vargas JE, Ramos JM, Aceves MA, Gorrostieta E, Kalender WA. A fully sensorized cooperative robotic system for surgical interventions. Sensors (Basel) 2012; 12 (07) 9423-9447
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Aghayev E, Ebert LC, Christe A. , et al. CT data-based navigation for post-mortem biopsy--a feasibility study. J Forensic Leg Med 2008; 15 (06) 382-387
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Penzkofer T, Isfort P, Bruners P. , et al. Robot arm based flat panel CT-guided electromagnetic tracked spine interventions: phantom and animal model experiments. Eur Radiol 2010; 20 (11) 2656-2662
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Pollock R, Mozer P, Guzzo TJ. , et al. Prospects in percutaneous ablative targeting: comparison of a computer-assisted navigation system and the AcuBot Robotic System. J Endourol 2010; 24 (08) 1269-1272
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Kettenbach J, Kara L, Toporek G, Fuerst M, Kronreif G. A robotic needle-positioning and guidance system for CT-guided puncture: Ex vivo results. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 2014; 23 (05) 271-278
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Yanof J, Haaga J, Klahr P. , et al. CT-integrated robot for interventional procedures: preliminary experiment and computer-human interfaces. Comput Aided Surg 2001; 6 (06) 352-359
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Seifabadi R, Cho NB, Song SE. , et al. Accuracy study of a robotic system for MRI-guided prostate needle placement. Int J Med Robot 2013; 9 (03) 305-316
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Zangos S, Melzer A, Eichler K. , et al. MR-compatible assistance system for biopsy in a high-field-strength system: initial results in patients with suspicious prostate lesions. Radiology 2011; 259 (03) 903-910
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Song DY, Burdette EC, Fiene J. , et al. Robotic needle guide for prostate brachytherapy: clinical testing of feasibility and performance. Brachytherapy 2011; 10 (01) 57-63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Davies BL, Harris SJ, Dibble E. Brachytherapy--an example of a urological minimally invasive robotic procedure. Int J Med Robot 2004; 1 (01) 88-96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Schulz B, Eichler K, Siebenhandl P. , et al. Accuracy and speed of robotic assisted needle interventions using a modern cone beam computed tomography intervention suite: a phantom study. Eur Radiol 2013; 23 (01) 198-204
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Simone C, Okamura AM. Modeling of needle insertion forces for robot-assisted percutaneous therapy. International Conference on Robotics & Automation 2002; 2: 2085-2091
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Kataoka H, Washio T, Audette M, Mizuhara K. . A Model for Relations Between Needle Deflection, Force, and Thickness on Needle Penetration. Paper presented at: Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention-Miccai 2001, International Conference; October 14-17, 2001; Utrecht, the Netherlands
    PubMed
  • 35 Okamura AM, Simone C, O'Leary MD. Force modeling for needle insertion into soft tissue. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2004; 51 (10) 1707-1716
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Gerovichev O, Marayong P, Okamura AM. The effect of visual and haptic feedback on manual and teleoperated needle insertion. Lect Notes Comput Sc 2002; 2488: 147-154
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Bao N, Chen Y, Yue Y. , et al. Fiducial markers configuration optimization in image-guided surgery. Biomed Mater Eng 2014; 24 (06) 3361-3371
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Kettenbach J, Kronreif G. Robotic systems for percutaneous needle-guided interventions. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 2015; 24 (01) 45-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar