Robot-assisted versus stereotactic frame-based stereoelectroencephalography in medically refractory epilepsy

Abstract

AimTo explore the difference between robot assisted (RA) and stereotactic frame based (SF) stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) in patients with medically refractory epilepsy. MethodsWe undertook a retrospective review of 33 SEEG cases at our center, of which 14 were SF performed from March to October 2018 and 19 were RA performed from November 2018 to December 2019. Detailed review of medical histories and operative records as well as imaging and trajectory plans was carried out for each patient, and the results related to each technique compared. A multiple linear regression model was used to test for variables that significantly influenced placement error. ResultsCompared to the SF group, the RA group had a higher mean number of electrodes per patient (10.7 ± 2.8 versus 6.4 ± 0.8, P < 0.0001) and a significantly shorter mean operative time (127.3 ± 40.7 versus 152.7 ± 13.6 min, P = 0.033). For the RA group, the intracranial implantation length was positively correlated with target point error (p = 0.000), depth error (p = 0.043), and two-dimensional (2D) radial error (p = 0.041). Conversely, skull thickness was negatively correlated with the TP error (p = 0.004), depth error (p = 0.037) and 2D radial error (p = 0.000). We also analyzed the mean entry point, target point, depth and 2D radial errors, the complication rates, and the results of epileptogenic zone (EZ) localization and Engel class. The results showed no difference in these aspects between the SF group and the RA group. ConclusionThis study suggests that, compared to stereotactic frame based SEEG, robot assisted SEEG is significantly more efficient and comparable in safety and effectiveness.