Beyer Lukas Philipp, Michalik Katharina, Niessen Christoph, Platz Batista da Silva Natascha, Wiesinger Isabell, Stroszczynski Christian, Wiggermann Philipp
Department of Radiology, University Hospital Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Med Sci Monit. 2016 Sep 20;22:3334-9. doi: 10.12659/msm.900686.
BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to compare robotic assisted and freehand facet joint puncture on a phantom model in regards to time requirements and puncture accuracy. MATERIAL AND METHODS Forty facet joints were punctured, 20 using a robotic guidance system and 20 using a freehand procedure. Side and height of the facet joints were randomized and identical for both groups. Procedural accuracy, defined as axial and sagittal deviation, as well as the number of corrections were assessed. Procedure times for each step were documented and time requirements for pre-positioning, reconstruction, planning, and total intervention were calculated. RESULTS Total procedure time for robotic guidance was 259±111 seconds versus 119±77 seconds for freehand procedure (p=1.0). Procedural accuracy for robotic guidance was significantly higher with 0 corrections versus 1.3 corrections for freehand procedure (p=0.02). Needle deviation in the robotics arm was 0.35±1.1 mm in the axial and 2.15±1.2 mm in the sagittal reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS Robotic assisted puncture of the facet joint allowed accurate positioning of the needle with a lower number of needle readjustments. Higher procedural accuracy was marginally offset by a slightly longer intervention time.
背景 本研究的目的是在一个模拟模型上比较机器人辅助和徒手小关节穿刺在时间要求和穿刺准确性方面的差异。材料与方法 对40个小关节进行穿刺,其中20个使用机器人引导系统,20个采用徒手操作。小关节的侧面和高度在两组中随机设定且相同。评估操作准确性,定义为轴向和矢状面偏差以及校正次数。记录每个步骤的操作时间,并计算预定位、重建、规划和总干预的时间要求。结果 机器人引导的总操作时间为259±111秒,而徒手操作的总操作时间为119±77秒(p = 1.0)。机器人引导的操作准确性显著更高,机器人引导组校正次数为0次,而徒手操作组校正次数为1.3次(p = 0.02)。机器人手臂的针在轴向偏差为0.35±1.1毫米,矢状面重建偏差为2.15±1.2毫米。结论 机器人辅助小关节穿刺可使针准确定位,且针的重新调整次数更少。操作时间略长在一定程度上抵消了更高的操作准确性。