Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundRecently, robotic arms have been incorporated into the implantation of electrodes for deep brain stimulation (DBS).This study aimed to determine the accuracy of brain electrode placement, initial clinical efficacy, and safety profile of the robotic arm Neuromate (Renishaw) compared to a stereotactic frame in movement disorders.MethodsThis study involved two retrospective cohorts: one cohort was operated on using a stereotactic frame and the other with a robotic arm. This study was conducted at Barcelona Hospital Clinic.ResultsSeventy-seven patients were included, of whom 30 underwent surgery using the robot and 47 using a stereotactic frame. The postoperative improvement percentage of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale at 3 months was similar in both groups (robot: 71.4 ± 18 vs. frame: 72.6% ± 17, P = 0.82). There were no significant differences in the perioperative complications (robot: 4% vs. frame: 4.3%, P = 0.93) or in the adverse reactions related to brain stimulation and medical treatment (robot: 18% vs. frame: 25%, P = 0.53). There was a slight improvement in the anatomical-radiological accuracy of brain electrode implantation assisted by the robotic arm, measured using radial error (robot: 1.01 ± 0.5 mm vs. frame: 1.32 ± 0.6 mm, P = 0.03).ConclusionsBoth systems (robotic and stereotactic frame) exhibited similar initial clinical efficacies and safety profiles. The use of the robotic arm Neuromate slightly improved the anatomical-radiological accuracy in the placement of DBS electrodes for movement disorders compared with the stereotactic frame.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.