Management and Outcome of Women with Placenta Accreta Spectrum and Treatment with Uterine Artery Embolization.

BACKGROUND: Placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) disorders are a continuum of placental pathologies with increased risk for hemorrhage, blood transfusion and maternal morbidity. Uterine artery embolization (UAE) is a safe approach to the standardization of complex PAS cases. The aim of this study is to analyze anemia and transfusion rate, outcome and anesthesiological management of women who underwent caesarean delivery with subsequent UAE for the management of PAS. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This retrospective observational study included all pregnant women admitted to the University Hospital Frankfurt between January 2012 and September 2023, with a diagnosis of PAS who underwent a two-step surgical approach for delivery and placenta removal. Primary procedure included cesarean delivery with subsequent UAE, secondary procedure included placenta removal after a minim of five weeks via curettage or HE. Maternal characteristics, anesthesiological management, complications, anemia rate, blood loss and administration of blood products were analyzed. RESULTS: In total, 17 women with PAS were included in this study. Of these, 5.9% had placenta increta and 94.1% had placenta percreta. Median blood loss was 300 (200-600) mL during primary procedure and 3600 (450-5500) mL during secondary procedure. In total, 11.8% and 62.5% of women received red blood cell transfusion during the primary and secondary procedures, respectively. After primary procedure, postpartum anemia rate was 76.5%. The HE rate was 64.7%. Regional anesthesia was used in 88.2% during primary procedure. CONCLUSION: The embolization of the uterine artery for women diagnosed with PAS is safe. Anemia management and the implementation of blood conservation strategies are crucial in women undergoing UAE for the management of PAS.

Accuracy of Robotic and Frame-Based Stereotactic Neurosurgery in a Phantom Model.

Background: The development of robotic systems has provided an alternative to frame-based stereotactic procedures. The aim of this experimental phantom study was to compare the mechanical accuracy of the Robotic Surgery Assistant (ROSA) and the Leksell stereotactic frame by reducing clinical and procedural factors to a minimum. Methods: To precisely compare mechanical accuracy, a stereotactic system was chosen as reference for both methods. A thin layer CT scan with an acrylic phantom fixed to the frame and a localizer enabling the software to recognize the coordinate system was performed. For each of the five phantom targets, two different trajectories were planned, resulting in 10 trajectories. A series of five repetitions was performed, each time based on a new CT scan. Hence, 50 trajectories were analyzed for each method. X-rays of the final cannula position were fused with the planning data. The coordinates of the target point and the endpoint of the robot- or frame-guided probe were visually determined using the robotic software. The target point error (TPE) was calculated applying the Euclidian distance. The depth deviation along the trajectory and the lateral deviation were separately calculated. Results: Robotics was significantly more accurate, with an arithmetic TPE mean of 0.53 mm (95% CI 0.41-0.55 mm) compared to 0.72 mm (95% CI 0.63-0.8 mm) in stereotaxy (p < 0.05). In robotics, the mean depth deviation along the trajectory was -0.22 mm (95% CI -0.25 to -0.14 mm). The mean lateral deviation was 0.43 mm (95% CI 0.32-0.49 mm). In frame-based stereotaxy, the mean depth deviation amounted to -0.20 mm (95% CI -0.26 to -0.14 mm), the mean lateral deviation to 0.65 mm (95% CI 0.55-0.74 mm). Conclusion: Both the robotic and frame-based approach proved accurate. The robotic procedure showed significantly higher accuracy. For both methods, procedural factors occurring during surgery might have a more relevant impact on overall accuracy.

Comparison of frame-less robotic versus frame-based stereotactic biopsy of intracranial lesions.

OBJECTIVE: Robotic guidance might be an alternative to classic stereotaxy for biopsies of intracranial lesions. Both methods were compared regarding time efficacy, histopathological results and complications. METHODS: A retrospective analysis enrolling all patients undergoing robotic- or stereotactic biopsies between 01/2015 and 12/2018 was conducted. Trajectory planning was performed on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). With the Robotic Surgery Assistant (ROSA), patient registration was accomplished using a facial laser scan in the operating room (OR), immediately followed by biopsy. In stereotaxy, patients were transported to the CT for Leksell Frame registration, followed by biopsy in the OR. RESULTS: The average overall procedure time amounted in robotics to 169 min and in stereotaxy to 179 min (p = 0.005). The difference was greatest for temporal targets, amounting in robotics to 161 min and in stereotaxy to 188 min (p = 0,0007). However, the average time spent purely in the OR amounted in robotics to 140 min and in stereotaxy to 113 min (p < 0.001). In 150 robotic biopsies, diagnostic yield amounted to 98%, in 266 stereotactic biopsies to 91%. Symptomatic postoperative hemorrhages were observed in 3 patients (2%) in robotic biopsy and 7 patients (2,7%) in stereotactic biopsy. CONCLUSION: Robotics showed a shorter overall procedure time as there is no need for a transport to the CT whereas the pure OR time was shorter in stereotaxy due to skipping the laser registration process. Diagnostic yield was higher in robotics, most likely due to case selection, complication rates were equal.

Electrode placement accuracy in robot-assisted epilepsy surgery: A comparison of different referencing techniques including frame-based CT versus facial laser scan based on CT or MRI.

BACKGROUND: Precise robotic or stereotactic implantation of stereoelectroencephalography (sEEG) electrodes relies on the exact referencing of the planning images in order to match the patient's anatomy to the stereotactic device or robot. We compared the accuracy of sEEG electrode implantation with stereotactic frame versus laser scanning of the face based on computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) datasets for referencing. METHODS: The accuracy was determined by calculating the Euclidian distance between the planned trajectory and the postoperative position of the sEEG electrode, defining the entry point error (EPE) and the target point error (TPE). The sEEG electrodes (n = 171) were implanted with the robotic surgery assistant (ROSA) in 19 patients. Preoperative trajectory planning was performed on three-dimensional (3D) MRI datasets. Referencing was accomplished either by performing (A) 1.25-mm slice CT with the patient's head fixed in a Leksell stereotactic frame (CT-frame, n = 49), fused with a 3D-T1-weighted, contrast enhanced- and T2-weighted 1.5 Tesla (T) MRI; (B) 1.25 mm CT (CT-laser, n = 60), fused with 3D-3.0-T MRI; (C) 3.0-T MRI T1-based laser scan (3.0-T MRI-laser, n = 56) or (D) in one single patient, because of a pacemaker, 3D-1.5-T MRI T1-based laser scan (1.5-T MRI-laser, n = 6). RESULTS: In (A) CT-frame referencing, the mean EPE amounted to 0.86 mm and the mean TPE amounted to 2.28 mm (n = 49). In (B) CT-laser referencing, the EPE amounted to 1.85 mm and the TPE to 2.41 mm (n = 60). In (C) 3.0-T MRI-laser referencing, the mean EPE amounted to 3.02 mm and the mean TPE to 3.51 mm (n = 56). In (D) 1.5-T MRI, surprisingly the mean EPE amounted only to 0.97 mm and the TPE to 1.71 mm (n = 6). In 3 cases using CT-laser and 1 case using 3.0 T MRI-laser for referencing, small asymptomatic intracerebral hemorrhages were detected. No further complications were observed. CONCLUSION: Robot-guided sEEG electrode implantation using CT-frame referencing and CT-laser-based referencing is most accurate and can serve for high precision placement of electrodes. In contrast, 3.0-T MRI-laser-based referencing is less accurate, but saves radiation. Most trajectories can be reached if alternative routes over less vascularized brain areas are used. This article is part of the Special Issue "Individualized Epilepsy Management: Medicines, Surgery and Beyond".