Operative neurosurgery (Hagerstown, Md.) · 2025
A New Area of Neurosurgery: First Robotic Neurosurgery Clinical Case Series.
СтатьяКлинический случайНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Eroglu Umit, Zaimoglu Murat, Bayatlı Eyup, Büyüktepe Murat, Orhan Ozgur, Erdin Engin, Gokalp Elif, Alpergin Baran Can, Ugur Hasan Caglar, Kahilogullari Gokmen, Meco Cem, Beton Suha, Basak Hazan, Caglar Yusuf Sukru, Cohen-Gadol Aaron A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Robotic surgery systems are commonly used in many surgical fields but currently have limited adoption in neurosurgery. The goal for this work was to share our experience with the da Vinci Xi surgical robot for neurosurgical practice.
METHODS: Our senior surgeon (U. E.) underwent robotic surgery training followed by simulation training. Five patients then underwent robotic surgery performed by the surgeon; pathologies included clivus chordoma, odontoid metastatic mass, peroneal neuropathy, and arachnoid cyst. Clinical data, demographic details, and follow-up outcomes were analyzed.
RESULTS: Of the 5 patients (2 female, 3 male; mean age, 43 years), 2 had a clivus chordoma, 1 had an odontoid metastatic mass, 1 had peroneal neuropathy, and 1 had an arachnoid cyst. No intraoperative or postoperative neurological deficits or complications were observed. All 5 of the patients had a favorable outcome.
CONCLUSION: Robotic systems can offer clear advantages over traditional neurosurgery, particularly for transoral resection and intracranial cyst fenestration. However, practical training is essential for effectively integrating these systems into routine neurosurgical practice. The case series presented here reveals the feasibility of robotic neurosurgery and the need for further evaluation of this technology.
METHODS: Our senior surgeon (U. E.) underwent robotic surgery training followed by simulation training. Five patients then underwent robotic surgery performed by the surgeon; pathologies included clivus chordoma, odontoid metastatic mass, peroneal neuropathy, and arachnoid cyst. Clinical data, demographic details, and follow-up outcomes were analyzed.
RESULTS: Of the 5 patients (2 female, 3 male; mean age, 43 years), 2 had a clivus chordoma, 1 had an odontoid metastatic mass, 1 had peroneal neuropathy, and 1 had an arachnoid cyst. No intraoperative or postoperative neurological deficits or complications were observed. All 5 of the patients had a favorable outcome.
CONCLUSION: Robotic systems can offer clear advantages over traditional neurosurgery, particularly for transoral resection and intracranial cyst fenestration. However, practical training is essential for effectively integrating these systems into routine neurosurgical practice. The case series presented here reveals the feasibility of robotic neurosurgery and the need for further evaluation of this technology.