Robot-assisted versus manual navigated stereoelectroencephalography in adult medically-refractory epilepsy patients

Objective: Stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) has experienced a recent growth in adoption for epileptogenic zone (EZ) localization. Advances in robotics have the potential to improve the efficiency and safety of this intracranial seizure monitoring method. We present our institutional experience employing robot-assisted SEEG and compare its operative efficiency, seizure reduction outcomes, and direct hospital costs with SEEG performed without robotic assistance using navigated stereotaxy.

Methods: We retrospectively identified 50 consecutive adult SEEG cases at our institution in this IRB-approved study, of which 25 were navigated with image guidance (hereafter referred to as "navigated") (02/2014-10/2016) and 25 were robot-assisted (09/2016-12/2017). A thorough review of medical/surgical history and operative records with imaging and trajectory plans was done for each patient. Direct inpatient costs related to each technique were compared.

Results: Most common seizure etiologies for patients undergoing navigated and robot-assisted SEEG included non-lesional and benign temporal lesions. Despite having a higher mean number of leads-per-patient (10.2 ± 3.5 versus 7.2 ± 2.6, P = 0.002), robot-assisted cases had a significantly shorter mean operative time than navigated cases (125.5±48.5 versus 173.4±84.3 min, P = 0.02). Comparison of robot-assisted cases over the study interval revealed no significant difference in mean operative time (136.4±51.4 min for the first ten cases versus 109.9±75.8 min for the last ten cases, P = 0.25) and estimated operative time-per-lead (13.4±6.0 min for the first ten cases versus 12.9±7.7 min for the last ten cases, P = 0.86). The mean depth, radial, target, and entry point errors for robot-assisted cases were 2.12±1.89, 1.66±1.58, 3.05±2.02 mm, and 1.39 ± 0.75 mm, respectively. The two techniques resulted in equivalent EZ localization rate (navigated 88 %, robot-assisted 96 %, P = 0.30). Common types of epilepsy surgery performed consisted of implantation of responsive neurostimulation (RNS) device (56 %), resection (19.1 %), and laser ablation (23.8 %) for navigated SEEG. For robot-assisted SEEG, either RNS implantation (68.2 %) or laser ablation (22.7 %) were performed or offered. A majority of navigated and robot-assisted patients who underwent epilepsy surgery achieved either Engel Class I (navigated 36.8 %, robot-assisted 31.6 %) or II (navigated 36.8 %, robot-assisted 15.8 %) outcome with no significant difference between the groups (P = 0.14). Direct hospital cost for robot-assisted SEEG was 10 % higher than non-robotic cases.

Conclusion: This single-institutional study suggests that robotic assistance can enhance efficiency of SEEG without compromising safety or precision when compared to image guidance only. Adoption of this technique with uniform safety and efficacy over a short period of time is feasible with favorable epilepsy outcomes.