Comparison of robotic-assisted carotid stenting and manual carotid stenting through the transradial approach

View More View Less
  • Department of Neurological Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

JNS + Pediatrics - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $505.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $600.00
Print or Print + Online

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility and safety of CorPath GRX robotic-assisted (RA) transradial (TR) carotid artery stenting (CAS) compared with manual TR CAS.

METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database and identified 13 consecutive patients who underwent TR CAS from June 2019 through February 2020. Patients were divided into 2 groups: RA (6 patients) and manual (7 patients).

RESULTS

Among 6 patients in the RA group with a mean age of 70.0 ± 7.2 years, technical success was achieved in all 6 (100%) procedures; there were no technical or access-site complications and no catheter exchanges. Transfemoral conversion was required in 1 (16.7%) case due to a tortuous aortic arch. There were no perioperative complications, including myocardial infarction, stroke, and mortality. The mean procedure duration was significantly longer in the RA group (85.0 ± 14.3 minutes [95% CI 69.9–100.0] vs 61.2 ± 17.5 minutes [95% CI 45.0–77.4], p = 0.0231). There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics, fluoroscopy time, contrast dose, radiation exposure, catheter exchanges, technical success, transfemoral conversion, technical or access-site complications, myocardial infarction, stroke, other complications, or mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors’ results suggest that RA TR CAS is feasible, safe, and effective. Neurovascular-specific engineering and software modifications are needed prior to complete remote control. Remote control has important implications regarding patient access to lifesaving procedures for conditions such as stroke and aneurysm rupture as well as operative precision. Future clinical investigations among larger cohorts are needed to demonstrate reliable performance and patient benefit.

ABBREVIATIONS CAS = carotid artery stenting; PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention; RA = robotic-assisted; TF = transfemoral; TR = transradial.

JNS + Pediatrics - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $505.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $600.00

Contributor Notes

Correspondence Pascal Jabbour: Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA. pascal.jabbour@jefferson.edu.

INCLUDE WHEN CITING Published online August 28, 2020; DOI: 10.3171/2020.5.JNS201421.

Disclosures Dr. Jabbour: consultant for Medtronic and MicroVention. Drs. Tjoumakaris and Gooch: consultants for Stryker.

  • 1

    Sajja KC, Sweid A, Al Saiegh F, Endovascular robotic: feasibility and proof of principle for diagnostic cerebral angiography and carotid artery stenting. J Neurointerv Surg. 2020;12(4):345349.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Nogueira RG, Sachdeva R, Al-Bayati AR, Robotic assisted carotid artery stenting for the treatment of symptomatic carotid disease: technical feasibility and preliminary results. J Neurointerv Surg. 2020;12(4):341344.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Mendes Pereira V, Cancelliere NM, Nicholson P, First-in-human, robotic-assisted neuroendovascular intervention. J Neurointerv Surg. 2020;12(4):338340.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Maor E, Eleid MF, Gulati R, Current and future use of robotic devices to perform percutaneous coronary interventions: a review. J Am Heart Assoc. 2017;6(7):e006239.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Beyar R, Gruberg L, Deleanu D, Remote-control percutaneous coronary interventions: concept, validation, and first-in-humans pilot clinical trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47(2):296300.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Weisz G, Metzger DC, Caputo RP, Safety and feasibility of robotic percutaneous coronary intervention: PRECISE (Percutaneous Robotically-Enhanced Coronary Intervention) Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(15):15961600.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Mahmud E, Naghi J, Ang L, Demonstration of the safety and feasibility of robotically assisted percutaneous coronary intervention in complex coronary lesions: results of the CORA-PCI study (Complex Robotically Assisted Percutaneous Coronary Intervention). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10(13):13201327.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Ghasem A, Sharma A, Greif DN, The arrival of robotics in spine surgery: a review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018;43(23):16701677.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    De Benedictis A, Trezza A, Carai A, Robot-assisted procedures in pediatric neurosurgery. Neurosurg Focus. 2017;42(5):E7.

  • 10

    Gonen L, Chakravarthi SS, Monroy-Sosa A, Initial experience with a robotically operated video optical telescopic-microscope in cranial neurosurgery: feasibility, safety, and clinical applications. Neurosurg Focus. 2017;42(5):E9.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Bezerra HG, Mehanna E, W Vetrovec G, . Longitudinal geographic miss (LGM) in robotic assisted versus manual percutaneous coronary interventions. J Interv Cardiol. 2015;28(5):449455.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Hasan F, Bonatti J. Robotically assisted percutaneous coronary intervention: benefits to the patient and the cardiologist. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2015;13(11):11651168.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Walters D, Omran J, Patel M, Robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention: concept, data, and clinical application. Interv Cardiol Clin. 2019;8(2):149159.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Dangas G, Iakovou I, Nikolsky E, Contrast-induced nephropathy after percutaneous coronary interventions in relation to chronic kidney disease and hemodynamic variables. Am J Cardiol. 2005;95(1):1319.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Mahmud E, Schmid F, Kalmar P, Feasibility and safety of robotic peripheral vascular interventions: results of the RAPID trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9(19):20582064.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Smilowitz NR, Weisz G. Robotic-assisted angioplasty: current status and future possibilities. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2012;14(5):642646.

  • 17

    Patel TM, Shah SC, Pancholy SB. Long distance tele-robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention: a report of first-in-human experience. EClinicalMedicine. 2019;14:5358.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Madder RD, VanOosterhout S, Mulder A, Feasibility of robotic telestenting over long geographic distances: a pre-clinical ex vivo and in vivo study. EuroIntervention. 2019;15(6):e510e512.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Albuquerque FC, Hirsch JA, Chen M, Fiorella D. Robotics in neurointervention: the promise and the reality. J Neurointerv Surg. 2020;12(4):333334.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Plourde G, Pancholy SB, Nolan J, Radiation exposure in relation to the arterial access site used for diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2015;386(10009):21922203.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Roguin A, Goldstein J, Bar O, Goldstein JA. Brain and neck tumors among physicians performing interventional procedures. Am J Cardiol. 2013;111(9):13681372.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Rajaraman P, Doody MM, Yu CL, Cancer risks in U.S. radiologic technologists working with fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures, 1994-2008. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016;206(5):11011109.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Jacob S, Boveda S, Bar O, Interventional cardiologists and risk of radiation-induced cataract: results of a French multicenter observational study. Int J Cardiol. 2013;167(5):18431847.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Andreassi MG, Piccaluga E, Gargani L, Subclinical carotid atherosclerosis and early vascular aging from long-term low-dose ionizing radiation exposure: a genetic, telomere, and vascular ultrasound study in cardiac catheterization laboratory staff. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8(4):616627.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Reeves RR, Ang L, Bahadorani J, Invasive cardiologists are exposed to greater left sided cranial radiation: the BRAIN study (Brain Radiation Exposure and Attenuation During Invasive Cardiology Procedures). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8(9):11971206.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

    Klein LW, Tra Y, Garratt KN, Occupational health hazards of interventional cardiologists in the current decade: results of the 2014 SCAI membership survey. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;86(5):913924.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Ross AM, Segal J, Borenstein D, Prevalence of spinal disc disease among interventional cardiologists. Am J Cardiol. 1997;79(1):6870.

  • 28

    Goldstein JA, Balter S, Cowley M, Occupational hazards of interventional cardiologists: prevalence of orthopedic health problems in contemporary practice. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2004;63(4):407411.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29

    Moore B, vanSonnenberg E, Casola G, Novelline RA. The relationship between back pain and lead apron use in radiologists. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1992;158(1):191193.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    Britz GW, Panesar SS, Falb P, Neuroendovascular-specific engineering modifications to the CorPath GRX Robotic System. J Neurosurg. Published online November 29, 2019. doi:10.3171/2019.9.JNS192113

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31

    Britz GW, Tomas J, Lumsden A. Feasibility of robotic-assisted neurovascular interventions: initial experience in flow model and porcine model. Neurosurgery. 2020;86(2):309314.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32

    Lendvay TS, Hannaford B, Satava RM. Future of robotic surgery. Cancer J. 2013;19(2):109119.

  • 33

    Da L, Zhang D, Wang T. Overview of the vascular interventional robot. Int J Med Robot. 2008;4(4):289294.

Metrics