Framed and non‐framed robotics in neurosurgery: A 10‐year single‐center experience

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Safety, efficacy and efficiency of neurosurgical robots are defined by their design (i.e., framed and non-framed) and procedural workflow (PW) (from image to surgery). The present study describes the quality indicators of three different robots in brain and spine surgery. METHODS: This single-centre study enrolled 252 patients over a 10-year period. Safety (complication rate) and efficacy (diagnostic yield, pedicle screw placement) were determined. Predictors of workflow efficiency (e.g., skin-to-skin) were evaluated and compared to conventional techniques (neuronavigation, stereotaxy). RESULTS: All robots showed excellent reliability (97.5%-100%) with low complication rates (4.5%-5.3%) and high efficacy (94.7%-97.7%). Robotics demonstrated a better time-efficiency than neuronavigation. However, there was no shortening of surgery time compared to conventional stereotaxy. Time-efficiency differed significantly between framed and non-framed workflows. CONCLUSION: While all neurosurgical robots were reliable, safe and efficacious, there were significant differences in time-efficiency. PWs should be improved to increase the acceptance of robotics in neurosurgery.