Dataset Information

Robotic stereotaxic system based on 3D skull reconstruction to improve surgical accuracy and speed.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Some experimental approaches in neuroscience research require the precise placement of a recording electrode, pipette or other tool into a specific brain area that can be quite small and/or located deep beneath the surface. This process is typically aided with stereotaxic methods but remains challenging due to a lack of advanced technology to aid the experimenter. Currently, procedures require a significant amount of skill, have a high failure rate, and take up a significant amount of time.

New method

We developed a next generation robotic stereotaxic platform for small rodents by combining a three-dimensional (3D) skull profiler sub-system and a full six degree-of-freedom (6DOF) robotic platform. The 3D skull profiler is based on structured illumination in which a series of horizontal and vertical line patterns are projected onto an animal skull. These patterns are captured by two two-dimensional (2D) CCD cameras which reconstruct an accurate 3D skull surface profile based on structured illumination and geometrical triangulation. Using the reconstructed 3D profile, the skull can be repositioned using a 6DOF robotic platform to accurately align a surgical tool.

Results

The system was evaluated using mechanical measurement techniques, and the accuracy of the platform was demonstrated using agar brain phantoms and animal skulls. Additionally, a small and deep brain nucleus (the medial nucleus of the trapezoid body) were targeted in rodents to confirm the targeting accuracy.

Conclusions

The new stereotaxic system can accomplish "skull-flat" rapidly and precisely and with minimal user intervention, and thus reduces the failure rate of such experiments.

SUBMITTER: Ly PT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8764742 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundReconstruction of maxillary defect resulting from trauma or oncology surgery is of great importance for patients with physical and psychological complications. The virtual surgical planning (VSP) and 3D printing technics had been used in recent years which simplified the surgical procedure and promoted success and accuracy. To assess the accuracy and outcome of VSP surgery, here we report our experience in maxillary reconstruction retrospectively.MethodPatients who received maxillary defect reconstruction from 2013 to 2020 were analyzed retrospectively. These patients were divided into two groups. Group 1 received VSP and 3D printed guiding plates in the surgery, while group 2 underwent free-hand surgery (FHS). Patients with different vertical and horizontal defects were classified according to Brown and Shaw classification. Clinical information and postoperative complications of all patients were collected. For patients with unilateral maxillary defect, orbit volume, orbit height, and the contour of the reconstructed side were compared with the normal side.ResultThirty-four patients who achieved the criteria were analyzed, of which 20 patients underwent VSP surgery. There were primary and secondary reconstruction cases in both two groups. Vascularized iliac crest flap was used in three cases, and fibula flap was performed in the other cases. One flap collapse occurred in FHS group. Seven patients in VSP group received dental implants, while the number in FHS group was 0. In vertical class III cases, the differences in orbit height (ΔD) and orbit volume (ΔV) between normal side and reconstructed side were measured and compared in the two groups. The mean ΔD is 1.78 ± 1.33 mm in VSP group and 4.25 ± 0.95 mm in FHS group, while the mean ΔV is 2.04 ± 0.85 cm3 in VSP group and 3.25 ± 0.17 cm3 in FHS group. The alterations of orbit height and volume in VSP group were much smaller than that in FHS group with statistical significance. From the perspective of aesthetics, the color-gradient map indicates a more symmetric and smoother curve of post-operation appearance in VSP group.ConclusionCompared with traditional free-hand surgical technics, VSP and 3D printing guiding plates can allow for a more accurate maxillary reconstruction with improved aesthetics.

Project description:During the past 5 years, the body of literature surrounding the utilization of three-dimensional (3D) printing in the field of urology has grown exponentially. Incentivized by work hour restrictions, patient safety initiatives, and inspired by technical advances in biomaterials and rapid printing strategies, this emerging, and fascinating area of research has begun to make headway into clinical practice. However, concerns about cost, limited understanding of the technical processes involved, and lack of its potential uses remain barriers to its widespread adoption. We examined existing published literature on how 3D printing technologies have been utilized in the field of Urology to enhance pre-operative planning, revitalize surgical training, and modernize patient education, with particular focus on, robotic surgery. To date, 3D-printed models have been used and studied most commonly in the preoperative planning for nephron-sparing surgeries during the treatment of renal masses, where the challenges of complex renal anatomy and benefits of reducing renal ischemic injury create the most intuitive value. Prostate models are the second most common, particularly in the planning of nerve-sparing procedures. Early studies have demonstrated sufficient realism and educational effectiveness. Subsequent studies demonstrated improved surgeon confidence, operative performance, and optimized patient outcomes including high levels of patient satisfaction. Realistic, accurate, and reasonably priced models can currently be generated within hours using standard desktop 3D printers. While primarily utilized as anatomic replicas of diseased organs that restore a sense of haptic feedback lost in robotic procedures, innovations in polymers, improvements in 3D printer host and modeling software, and upgrades in printer hardware allow this technology to serve as a comprehensive, interactive, simulation platform that can be a critical surgical decision making as well as an effective teaching tool. As Urologists continue to rapidly diversify and iterate upon this adaptive modality, the benefits in patient outcomes will likely outpace the diminishing drawbacks, and we may well see the next revolution in surgical education, robotic techniques, and personalized medicine concurrently.

Project description:Prostate cancer is the second most common type of cancer in Canadian men. Radical prostatectomy is one of the treatment options available, and involves removing the prostate gland and surrounding tissues. In recent years, surgeons have begun to use robot-assisted radical prostatectomy more frequently. We aimed to determine the clinical benefits and harms of the robotic surgical system for radical prostatectomy (robot-assisted radical prostatectomy) compared with the open and laparoscopic surgical methods. We also assessed the cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer in Ontario.We performed a literature search and included prospective comparative studies that examined robot-assisted versus open or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. The outcomes of interest were perioperative, functional, and oncological. The quality of the body of evidence was examined according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We also conducted a cost-utility analysis with a 1-year time horizon. The potential long-term benefits of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for functional and oncological outcomes were also evaluated in a 10-year Markov model in scenario analyses. In addition, we conducted a budget impact analysis to estimate the additional costs to the provincial budget if the adoption of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy were to increase in the next 5 years. A needs assessment determined that the published literature on patient perspectives was relatively well developed, and that direct patient engagement would add relatively little new information.Compared with the open approach, we found robot-assisted radical prostatectomy reduced length of stay and blood loss (moderate quality evidence) but had no difference or inconclusive results for functional and oncological outcomes (low to moderate quality evidence). Compared with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy had no difference in perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes (low to moderate quality evidence). Compared with open radical prostatectomy, our best estimates suggested that robot-assisted prostatectomy was associated with higher costs ($6,234) and a small gain in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (0.0012). The best estimate of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $5.2 million per QALY gained. However, if robot-assisted radical prostatectomy were assumed to have substantially better long-term functional and oncological outcomes, the ICER might be as low as $83,921 per QALY gained. We estimated the annual budget impact to be $0.8 million to $3.4 million over the next 5 years.There is no high-quality evidence that robot-assisted radical prostatectomy improves functional and oncological outcomes compared with open and laparoscopic approaches. However, compared with open radical prostatectomy, the costs of using the robotic system are relatively large while the health benefits are relatively small.