Cargando…
Comparative Analysis of Optoelectronic Accuracy in the Laboratory Setting Versus Clinical Operative Environment: A Systematic Review
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVES: The optoelectronic camera source and data interpolation process serve as the foundation for navigational integrity in robotic-assisted surgical platforms. The current systematic review serves to provide a basis for the numerical disparity observed when co...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8998481/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35393881 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/21925682211035083 |
_version_ | 1784684954261651456 |
---|---|
author | Cunningham, Bryan W. Brooks, Daina M. |
author_facet | Cunningham, Bryan W. Brooks, Daina M. |
author_sort | Cunningham, Bryan W. |
collection | PubMed |
description | STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVES: The optoelectronic camera source and data interpolation process serve as the foundation for navigational integrity in robotic-assisted surgical platforms. The current systematic review serves to provide a basis for the numerical disparity observed when comparing the intrinsic accuracy of optoelectronic cameras versus accuracy in the laboratory setting and clinical operative environments. METHODS: Review of the PubMed and Cochrane Library research databases was performed. The exhaustive literature compilation obtained was then vetted to reduce redundancies and categorized into topics of intrinsic accuracy, registration accuracy, musculoskeletal kinematic platforms, and clinical operative platforms. RESULTS: A total of 465 references were vetted and 137 comprise the basis for the current analysis. Regardless of application, the common denominators affecting overall optoelectronic accuracy are intrinsic accuracy, registration accuracy, and application accuracy. Intrinsic accuracy equaled or was less than 0.1 mm translation and 0.1 degrees rotation per fiducial. Controlled laboratory platforms reported 0.1 to 0.5 mm translation and 0.1 to 1.0 degrees rotation per array. Accuracy in robotic-assisted spinal surgery reported 1.5 to 6.0 mm translation and 1.5 to 5.0 degrees rotation when comparing planned to final implant position. CONCLUSIONS: Navigational integrity and maintenance of fidelity of optoelectronic data is the cornerstone of robotic-assisted spinal surgery. Transitioning from controlled laboratory to clinical operative environments requires an increased number of steps in the optoelectronic kinematic chain and error potential. Diligence in planning, fiducial positioning, system registration and intra-operative workflow have the potential to improve accuracy and decrease disparity between planned and final implant position. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8998481 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-89984812022-04-12 Comparative Analysis of Optoelectronic Accuracy in the Laboratory Setting Versus Clinical Operative Environment: A Systematic Review Cunningham, Bryan W. Brooks, Daina M. Global Spine J Special Issue Articles STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVES: The optoelectronic camera source and data interpolation process serve as the foundation for navigational integrity in robotic-assisted surgical platforms. The current systematic review serves to provide a basis for the numerical disparity observed when comparing the intrinsic accuracy of optoelectronic cameras versus accuracy in the laboratory setting and clinical operative environments. METHODS: Review of the PubMed and Cochrane Library research databases was performed. The exhaustive literature compilation obtained was then vetted to reduce redundancies and categorized into topics of intrinsic accuracy, registration accuracy, musculoskeletal kinematic platforms, and clinical operative platforms. RESULTS: A total of 465 references were vetted and 137 comprise the basis for the current analysis. Regardless of application, the common denominators affecting overall optoelectronic accuracy are intrinsic accuracy, registration accuracy, and application accuracy. Intrinsic accuracy equaled or was less than 0.1 mm translation and 0.1 degrees rotation per fiducial. Controlled laboratory platforms reported 0.1 to 0.5 mm translation and 0.1 to 1.0 degrees rotation per array. Accuracy in robotic-assisted spinal surgery reported 1.5 to 6.0 mm translation and 1.5 to 5.0 degrees rotation when comparing planned to final implant position. CONCLUSIONS: Navigational integrity and maintenance of fidelity of optoelectronic data is the cornerstone of robotic-assisted spinal surgery. Transitioning from controlled laboratory to clinical operative environments requires an increased number of steps in the optoelectronic kinematic chain and error potential. Diligence in planning, fiducial positioning, system registration and intra-operative workflow have the potential to improve accuracy and decrease disparity between planned and final implant position. SAGE Publications 2022-04-08 2022-04 /pmc/articles/PMC8998481/ /pubmed/35393881 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/21925682211035083 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work as published without adaptation or alteration, without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). |
spellingShingle | Special Issue Articles Cunningham, Bryan W. Brooks, Daina M. Comparative Analysis of Optoelectronic Accuracy in the Laboratory Setting Versus Clinical Operative Environment: A Systematic Review |
title | Comparative Analysis of Optoelectronic Accuracy in the Laboratory Setting Versus Clinical Operative Environment: A Systematic Review |
title_full | Comparative Analysis of Optoelectronic Accuracy in the Laboratory Setting Versus Clinical Operative Environment: A Systematic Review |
title_fullStr | Comparative Analysis of Optoelectronic Accuracy in the Laboratory Setting Versus Clinical Operative Environment: A Systematic Review |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparative Analysis of Optoelectronic Accuracy in the Laboratory Setting Versus Clinical Operative Environment: A Systematic Review |
title_short | Comparative Analysis of Optoelectronic Accuracy in the Laboratory Setting Versus Clinical Operative Environment: A Systematic Review |
title_sort | comparative analysis of optoelectronic accuracy in the laboratory setting versus clinical operative environment: a systematic review |
topic | Special Issue Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8998481/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35393881 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/21925682211035083 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT cunninghambryanw comparativeanalysisofoptoelectronicaccuracyinthelaboratorysettingversusclinicaloperativeenvironmentasystematicreview AT brooksdainam comparativeanalysisofoptoelectronicaccuracyinthelaboratorysettingversusclinicaloperativeenvironmentasystematicreview |