RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Development and Validation of Collaborative Robot-assisted Cutting Method for Iliac Crest Flap Raising: Randomized Crossover Trial
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.09.04.24312594
DO 10.1101/2024.09.04.24312594
A1 Becker, Paulina
A1 Li, Yao
A1 Drobinsky, Sergey
A1 Egger, Jan
A1 Xie, Kunpeng
A1 Rashad, Ashkan
A1 Radermacher, Klaus
A1 Röhrig, Rainer
A1 de la Fuente, Matías
A1 Hölzle, Frank
A1 Puladi, Behrus
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/05/2024.09.04.24312594.abstract
AB The current gold standard of computer-assisted jaw reconstruction includes raising microvascular bone flaps with patient-specific 3D-printed cutting guides. The downsides of cutting guides are invasive fixation, periosteal denudation, preoperative lead time and missing intraoperative flexibility. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility and accuracy of a robot-assisted cutting method for raising iliac crest flaps compared to a conventional 3D-printed cutting guide.In a randomized crossover design, 40 participants raised flaps on pelvic models using conventional cutting guides and a robot-assisted cutting method. The accuracy was measured and compared regarding osteotomy angle deviation, Hausdorff Distance (HD) and Average Hausdorff Distance (AVD). Duration, workload and usability were further evaluated.The mean angular deviation for the robot-assisted cutting method was 1.9±1.1° (mean±sd) and for the 3D-printed cutting guide it was 4.7±2.9° (p<0.001). The HD resulted in a mean value of 1.5±0.6mm (robot) and 2.0±0.9mm (conventional) (p<0.001). For the AVD, this was 0.8±0.5mm (robot) and 0.8±0.4mm (conventional) (p=0.320). Collaborative robot-assisted cutting is an alternative to 3D-printed cutting guides in experimental static settings, achieving slot design benefits with less invasiveness and higher intraoperative flexibility. In the next step, the results should be tested in a dynamic environment with a moving phantom and on the cadaver.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialDRKS00031358Clinical Protocols https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00031358 Funding StatementBehrus Puladi was funded by the Medical Faculty of RWTH Aachen University as part of the Clinician Scientist Program. We acknowledge FWF enFaced 2.0 [KLI 1044, https://enfaced2.ikim.nrw/] and KITE (Plattform für KI-Translation Essen) from the REACT-EU initiative [https://kite.ikim.nrw/, EFRE-0801977].Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethics Committee of RWTH Aachen University (approval number EK 23-149, date of approval 20.07.2023)I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.Yes