Journal of Robotic Surgery

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 157–163 | Cite as

The comparative accuracy of the ROSA stereotactic robot across a wide range of clinical applications and registration techniques

  • Nicholas J. Brandmeir
  • Sandip Savaliya
  • Pratik Rohatgi
  • Michael Sather
Original Article


Robot-assisted stereotactic neurosurgery is an emerging technology with a growing range of applications. The ROSA system is a robotic stereotactic system that has been shown to be accurate in laboratory studies and large case series. The goal of this study was to examine the accuracy of the ROSA across different registration methods as well as different clinical applications. Sixteen patients with one hundred and seventeen stereotactic trajectories were examined. Accuracy was compared by measuring the distance between the trajectory target and the actual termination of the device as determined by imaging. Entry error and angular deviation were also measured. Variables included bone fiducials vs. laser facial scanning, the clinical indication for stereotactic surgery, and the effect of lead deflection on accuracy. Bone fiducials did not offer an accuracy benefit over laser facial scanning (mean target error 4.5–3.9 mm, p = 0.34) in these clinical scenarios. Laser interstitial thermal therapy, responsive neurostimulation, and stereo electroencephalography were equally accurate when placed by the ROSA (mean target error 4.4–4.3–4.0 mm, respectively, p = 0.69). Deflection did not affect lead accuracy (mean target error 4.4–3.9 mm, p = 0.11). Similar results are seen for entry error and angular deviation. ROSA is a highly accurate stereotactic system. Laser facial scanning provides the same accuracy as bone fiducials in these stereotactic applications. The ROSA is equally accurate across a wide spectrum of applications. The ROSA is effective at limiting lead deflection, and when it does occur, it does not impact target accuracy in a significant way.


ROSA Robot Stereotactic Fiducial Frameless Accuracy Neuronavigation 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

There are no funding sources to disclose for this work. Dr. Sather serves as a proctor for NeuroPace, Inc., educating surgeons on implantation technique; the other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Ethical approval

This work was a review of an existing quality improvement database; research was done in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.


  1. 1.
    Curry DJ, Gowda A, McNichols RJ, Wilfong AA (2012) MR-guided stereotactic laser ablation of epileptogenic foci in children. Epilepsy Behav 24:408–414CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    LeWitt PA, Rezai AR, Leehey MA, Ojemann SG, Flaherty AW, Eskandar EN et al (2011) AAV2-GAD gene therapy for advanced Parkinson’s disease: a double-blind, sham-surgery controlled, randomised trial. Lancet Neurol 10:309–319CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Youngerman BE, Chan AK, Mikell CB, McKhann GM, Sheth SA (2016) A decade of emerging indications: deep brain stimulation in the United States. J Neurosurg 125:461–471CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mascott CR, Sol J-C, Bousquet P, Lagarrigue J, Lazorthes Y, Lauwers-Cances V (2006) Quantification of true in vivo (application) accuracy in cranial image-guided surgery: influence of mode of patient registration. Neurosurgery 59:ONS146–ONS156 (discussion ONS146–56) PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brandmeir N, Acharya V, Sather M (2016) Robot assisted stereotactic laser ablation for a radiosurgery resistant hypothalamic hamartoma. Cureus 8:e581PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chan AY, Tran DKT, Gill AS, Hsu FPK, Vadera S (2016) Stereotactic robot-assisted MRI-guided laser thermal ablation of radiation necrosis in the posterior cranial fossa: technical note. Neurosurg Focus 41:E5CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    González-Martínez J, Bulacio J, Thompson S, Gale J, Smithason S, Najm I et al (2016) Technique, results, and complications related to robot-assisted stereoelectroencephalography. Neurosurgery 78:169–180CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gonzalez-Martinez J, Vadera S, Mullin J, Enatsu R, Alexopoulos A, Patwardhan R et al (2014) Robot-assisted stereotactic laser ablation in medically intractable epilepsy: operative technique. Neurosurgery 10:167–173CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lefranc M, Le Gars D (2012) Robotic implantation of deep brain stimulation leads, assisted by intra-operative, flat-panel CT. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 154:2069–2074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lefranc M, Capel C, Pruvot-Occean A-S, Fichten A, Desenclos C, Toussaint P et al (2015) Frameless robotic stereotactic biopsies: a consecutive series of 100 cases. J Neurosurg 122:342–352CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vadera S, Chan A, Lo T, Gill A, Phielipp NM, Hermanowicz N et al (2015) Frameless stereotactic robot-assisted subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation: case report. World Neurosurg. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2015.11.009 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lefranc M, Capel C, Pruvot AS, Fichten A, Desenclos C, Toussaint P et al (2014) the impact of the reference imaging modality, registration method and intraoperative flat-panel computed tomography on the accuracy of the ROSA® stereotactic robot. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 92:242–250CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Husstedt H, Heermann R, Becker H (1999) Contribution of low-dose CT-scan protocols to the total positioning error in computer-assisted surgery. Comput Aided Surg 4:275–280PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhou C, Anschuetz L, Weder S, Xie L, Caversaccio M, Weber S et al (2016) Surface matching for high-accuracy registration of the lateral skull base. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 11:2097–2103CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kristin J, Mucha D, Schipper J, Klenzner T (2012) Registration strategies for the application of the navigation system Fiagon at the lateral scull base. Laryngorhinootologie 91:306–310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Smith TR, Mithal DS, Stadler JA, Asgarian C, Muro K, Rosenow JM (2014) Impact of fiducial arrangement and registration sequence on target accuracy using a phantom frameless stereotactic navigation model. J Clin Neurosci 21:1976–1980CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Steinmeier R, Rachinger J, Kaus M, Ganslandt O, Huk W, Fahlbusch R (2000) Factors influencing the application accuracy of neuronavigation systems. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 75:188–202CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nauta HJ (1994) Error assessment during “image guided” and “imaging interactive” stereotactic surgery. Comput Med Imaging Graph 18:279–287CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of NeurosurgeryPenn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical CenterHersheyUSA

Personalised recommendations