Advertisement

Journal of Robotic Surgery

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 33–39 | Cite as

Evaluation of robotic assistance in neurosurgical applications

  • G. KronreifEmail author
  • W. Ptacek
  • M. Kornfeld
  • M. Fürst
Original Article

Abstract

An analysis of usability aspects and accuracy for three different methods of neurosurgical intervention—stereotaxy, neuro-navigation, and robotic assistance—was accomplished in a detailed study including clinicians with different experience levels. Accuracy tests with a specially designed phantom were performed under clinical conditions according to EN ISO 9283. Test scenarios were designed according to a realistic clinical work-flow for the brain biopsy process. This paper presents the results of the accuracy evaluation as well as a discussion of the results and further steps.

Keywords

Neurosurgery Biopsy Medical robot Accuracy evaluation 

Notes

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Cleary K, Nguyen C (2001) State of the art in surgical robotics: clinical applications and technology challenges. Comput Aided Surg 6:312–328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rössler K (2005) State of the art—hirnbiopsie. J Neurol Neurochir Psychiatr 3:11–14Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wirtz CR, Kunze S (1998) Neuronavigation: Computerassistierte Neurochirurgie. Deutsches Ärzteblatt 95:A2384–2390 Heft 39Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cleary K, Melzer A, Watson V, Kronreif G, Stoianovici D (2006) Interventional robotic systems: applications and technology state-of the-art. Minim Invasive Ther 15(2):101–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kronreif G, Fürst M, Ptacek W, Kornfeld M, Kettenbach J (2007) Robotic platform B-RobII: in vitro tests and results. In: Proceedings of 4th international conference on computer aided surgery around the head, Innsbruck, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stiehl JB, Bach J, Heck DA (2007) Validation and metrology in CAOS. In: Stiehl JB, Konermann WH, Haaker RG, DiGioia AM, eds., Navigation and MIS in orthopedic surgery, Ch. 9. Springer, Germany, pp 68–78Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barrera A, Bach B, Kazanzides P, Haider H (2007) Validation of an ASTM standard proposed to assess localizer functionality of CAOS systems: a joint effort by three laboratories. In: Proceedings of the 20th annual congress of International Society for Technology in Arthroplasty (ISTA), Paris, p 81Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kazanzides P (2006) Surgical robots and phantom (artifact) devices. In: Proceedings of the ASTM workshop on medical devices metrology and standards needs. ASTM, NIST, NCI, FDA and U.T. Arlington, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chiao J, Goldman J, Heck D, Kazanzides P, Peine W, Stiehl J, Yen D, Dagalakis N (2008) Metrology and standards needs for some categories of medical devices. J Res NIST 113(2):121–129Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dagalakis N, Kim Y, Sawyer D, Shakarji C (2007) Development of tools for measuring the performance of computer assisted orthopaedic hip surgery systems. In: Proceedings of the ACM workshop on performance metrics for intelligent systems (PerMIS), Gaithersburg, pp 180–187Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    ISO 9283 (1998) Manipulating industrial robots—performance criteria and related test methodsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Kronreif
    • 1
    Email author
  • W. Ptacek
    • 1
  • M. Kornfeld
    • 1
  • M. Fürst
    • 1
  1. 1.Austrian Center for Medical Innovation and Technology (ACMIT), Integrated Microsystems Austria GmbHWiener NeustadtAustria

Personalised recommendations