» Articles » PMID: 37543370

Feasibility of Robotic Neuroendovascular Surgery

Overview
Publisher Sage Publications
Specialty Neurology
Date 2023 Aug 5
PMID 37543370
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Several recent reports of CorPath GRX vascular robot (Cordinus Vascular Robotics, Natick, MA) use intracranially suggest feasibility of neuroendovascular application. Further use and development is likely. During this progression it is important to understand endovascular robot feasibility principles established in cardiac and peripheral vascular literature which enabled extension intracranially. Identification and discussion of robotic proof of concept principals from sister disciplines may help guide safe and accountable neuroendovascular application.

Objective: Summarize endovascular robotic feasibility principals established in cardiac and peripheral vascular literature relevant to neuroendovascular application.

Methods: Searches of PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar were conducted under PRISMA guidelines using MeSH search terms. Abstracts were uploaded to Covidence citation review (Covidence, Melbourne, AUS) using RIS format. Pertinent articles underwent full text review and findings are presented in narrative and tabular format.

Results: Search terms generated 1642 articles; 177, 265 and 1200 results for PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar respectively. With duplicates removed, title review identified 176 abstracts. 55 articles were included, 45 from primary review and 10 identified during literature review. As it pertained to endovascular robotic feasibility proof of concept 12 cardiac, 3 peripheral vascular and 5 neuroendovascular studies were identified.

Conclusions: Cardiac and peripheral vascular literature established endovascular robot feasibility and efficacy with equivalent to superior outcomes after short learning curves while reducing radiation exposure >95% for the primary operator. Limitations of cost, lack of haptic integration and coaxial system control continue, but as it stands neuroendovascular robotic implementation is worth continued investigation.

Citing Articles

Bridging the Gap: Exploring Opportunities, Challenges, and Problems in Integrating Assistive Technologies, Robotics, and Automated Machines into the .

Giansanti D Healthcare (Basel). 2023; 11(17).

PMID: 37685498 PMC: 10487463. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare11172462.

References
1.
Mahmud E, Schmid F, Kalmar P, Deutschmann H, Hafner F, Rief P . Feasibility and Safety of Robotic Peripheral Vascular Interventions: Results of the RAPID Trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 9(19):2058-2064. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2016.07.002. View

2.
Madhavan K, Kolcun J, Onn Chieng L, Wang M . Augmented-reality integrated robotics in neurosurgery: are we there yet?. Neurosurg Focus. 2017; 42(5):E3. DOI: 10.3171/2017.2.FOCUS177. View

3.
Nelson J, Bambakidis N . Editorial. The delivery of stroke intervention in the community: is telerobotic endovascular surgery the solution?. J Neurosurg. 2019; 132(3):968-970. DOI: 10.3171/2019.10.JNS192195. View

4.
Campbell P, Kruse K, Kroll C, Patterson J, Esposito M . The impact of precise robotic lesion length measurement on stent length selection: ramifications for stent savings. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2015; 16(6):348-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.carrev.2015.06.005. View

5.
Smilowitz N, Moses J, Sosa F, Lerman B, Qureshi Y, Dalton K . Robotic-Enhanced PCI Compared to the Traditional Manual Approach. J Invasive Cardiol. 2014; 26(7):318-21. View