Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Workflow assessment as a preclinical development tool

Surgical process models of three techniques for minimally invasive cochlear implantation

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Minimally invasive cochlear implant surgery is a challenging procedure due to high demands on accuracy. For clinical success, an according assistance system has to compete against the traditional approach in terms of risk, operating time and cost. It has not yet been determined what kind of system is the most suited. The purpose of this study is a proof of concept of surgical process modeling as a preclinical development tool and the comparison of workflow concepts for this new approach.

Methods

Three preclinical systems (two stereotactic and one robotic) for minimally invasive cochlear implant surgery are compared using the method of surgical process modeling. All three systems were successfully tested with ex vivo human specimen to create minimally invasive surgical access to the cochlea. Those systems where chosen for comparison, because they represent three diverse approaches with different corresponding workflows for the same intervention. The experiments were used to create a process model for each system by recording the interventions.

Results

All three conceptual systems developed by our group have shown their eligibility. The recorded process models provide a convenient method for direct comparison. Reduction in the surgical time has a higher impact on the process, than time that is needed for setting up a system beforehand. The stereotactic approaches have little preparation effort and are low cost in terms of hardware compared to the robotic approach, which in return is beneficial in terms of workload reduction for the surgeon.

Conclusion

Surgical process modeling is suitable for comparison of different assistant systems for minimally invasive cochlear implantation. The benefit of reduced trauma, compared to the traditional mastoidectomy, can now be assessed with consideration of the workflow of each technique. The process models enable an assessment in the regard of surgical time and workload.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. National Institues of Health (2010) Cochlear implants https://report.nih.gov/NIHfactsheets/ Pdfs/CochlearImplants(NIDCD).pdf. Accessed 12 Dec 2017 [Online]

  2. World Health Organization, WHO (2017) Deafness and hearing loss http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs300/en/. Accessed 12 Dec 2017 [Online]

  3. Balachandran R, Mitchell JE, Blachon G, Noble JH, Dawant BM, Fitzpatrick JM, Labadie RF (2010) Percutaneous cochlear implant drilling via customized frames: an in vitro study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 142:421–426

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Kobler JP, Kotlarski J, Lexow GJ, Rau TS, Majdani O, Ortmaier T (2014) Design optimization of a bone-attached, redundant and reconfigurable parallel kinematic device for skull surgery. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pp 2364–2371

  5. Kobler JP, Kotlarski J, Öltjen J, Baron S, Ortmaier T (2011) Design and analysis of a head-mounted parallel kinematic device for skull surgery. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 7:137–149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kobler JP, Nülle K, Lexow GJ, Rau TS, Majdani O, Kahrs LA, Kotlarski J, Tobias Ortmaier (2016) Configuration optimization and experimental accuracy evaluation of a bone-attached, parallel robot for skull surgery. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 11:421–436

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kratchman LB, Blachon GS, Withrow TJ, Balachandran R, Labadie RF, Webster RJ (2010) Toward automation of image-guided microstereotactic frames: a bone-attached parallel robot for percutaneous cochlear implantation. Robot Sci Syst Workshop Enabling Technol 31:94–99

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kratchman LB, Blachon GS, Withrow TJ, Balachandran R, Labadie RF, Webster RJ (2011) Design of a bone-attached parallel robot for percutaneous cochlear implantation. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 58:2904–2910

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Labadie RF, Balachandran R, Mitchel JE, Noble JH, Majdani O, Haynes DS (2010) Clinical validation study of percutaneous cochlear access using patient customized micro-stereotactic frames. Otol Neurotol 31:94–99

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Labadie RF, Balachandran R, Noble JH, Blachon GS, Mitchell JE, Reda FA, Dawant BM, Fitzpatrick JM (2014) Minimally invasive image-guided cochlear implantation surgery: first report of clinical implementation the laryngoscope. Am Laryngol Rhinol Otol Soc 124:1915–1922

    Google Scholar 

  11. Vollmann B, Müller S, Kundrat D, Ortmaier T, Kahrs LA (2015) Methods for intraoperative, sterile pose-setting of patient-specific microstereotactic frames. In: Proceedings of SPIE, vol 9415, pp 94150M–94157

  12. Rau TS, Lexow GJ, Blume D, Kluge M, Lenarz T, Majdani O (2017) Micro-stereotactic frame utilizing bone cement for individual fabrication: an initial investigation of its accuracy. In: Proc SPIE, vol 10135, p 10135–10139

  13. Bell B, Williamson T, Gerber N, Gavaghan K, Wimmer W, Kompis M, Weber S, Caversaccio M (2014) An image-guided robot system for direct cochlear access. Cochlear Implants Int 15:11–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Majdani O, Rau TS, Baron S, Eilers H, Baier C, Heimann B, Ortmaier T, Bartling S, Lenarz T, Leinung M (2009) A robot-guided minimally invasive approach for cochlear implant surgery: preliminary results of a temporal bone study. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 4:475–486

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Tauscher S, Fuchs A, Baier F, Kahrs LA, Ortmaier T (2017) High-accuracy drilling with an image guided light weight robot: autonomous versus intuitive feed control. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 12:1763–1773

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Weber S, Gavaghan K, Wimmer W, Williamson T, Gerber N, Anso J, Bell B, Feldmann A, Rathgeb C, Matulic M, Stebinger M, Schneider D, Mantokoudis G, Scheidegger O, Wagner F, Kompis M, Caversaccio M (2017) Instrument flight to the inner ear. Sci Robot 2(eaal491):6

    Google Scholar 

  17. Zhu Y, Xu Y, Ke J, Ma F, Hu L, Li C (2014) Research on computer-assisted minimally invasive cochlear implant system. Appl Mech Mater 577:1241–1244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dahroug B, Tamadazte B, Tavernier L, Weber S, Andreff N (2018) Review on otological robotic systems: toward micro-robot assisted cholesteatoma surgery. In: IEEE reviews in biomedical engineering, early access, ahead of print

  19. Ansó J, Wimmer W, Rathgeb C, Gerber N, Schneider D, Hermann J, Williamson T, Mantokoudis G, Caversaccio M, Weber S, Gavaghan K (2017) Robotic cochlear implantation—first clinical experiences. In: Proceedings of 16th annual meeting of the German society for computer and robot assisted surgery, CURAC 2017, pp 144–150

  20. Camarillo DB, Krummel TM, Kenneth SJ (2004) Robotic technology in surgery: past, present, and future. Am J Surg 188:2–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Barbash GI, Glied SA (2010) New technology and health care costs—the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med 363:701–704

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Dillon NP, Balachandran R, Fitzpatrick JM, Siebold MA, Labadie RF, Wanna GB, Withrow TJ, Webster RJ (2015) A compact bone-attached robot for mastoidectomy. J Med Device 9:31–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Cho B, Matsumoto N, Mori M, Komune S, Hashizume M (2014) Image-guided placement of the Bonebridge without surgical navigation equipment. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 9:845–855

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Neumuth T (2016) Surgical process modeling. Innov Surg Sci 2:123–137

    Google Scholar 

  25. Lalys F, Jannin P (2014) Surgical process modeling: a review. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 9:495–511

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. MacKenzie L, Ibbotson JA, Cao CGL, Lomax AJ (2001) Hierarchical decomposition of laparoscopic surgery: a human factors approach to investigating the operating room environment. Minim Invasive Therapy Allied Technol 10:121–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Neumuth D, Loebe F, Herre H, Neumuth T (2011) Modeling surgical processes: a four-level translational approach. Artif Intell Med 51(3):147–161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Neumuth T, Schumann S, Strauß G, Jannin P, Meixensberger J, Dietz A, Lemke HU, Burgert O (2006) Visualization options for surgical workflows. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 1:438–440

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kobler JP, Prielozny L, Lexow GJ, Rau TS, Majdani O, Ortmaier T (2015) Mechanical characterization of bone anchors used with a bone-attached, parallel robot for skull surgery. Med Eng Phys 37:460–468

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kobler JP, Wall S, Lexow GJ, Lang CP, Majdani O, Kahrs LA, Ortmaier T (2015) An experimental evaluation of loads occurring during guided drilling for cochlear implantation. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 10:1625–1637

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Schneider V, Mueller S, Nuelle K, Kahrs LA, Majdani O, Ortmaier T (2017) Experimental accuracy optimization of a parallel kinematic tool for minimally invasive cochlear-implant surgery. In: Proceedings of 16th annual meeting of the German society for computer and robot assisted surgery, CURAC 2017, pp 202–207

  32. Kobler JP, Beckmann Dl, Rau TS, Majdani O, Ortmaier T (2014) An automated insertion tool for cochlear implants with integrated force sensing capability. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 9:481–494

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors acknowledge the financial support by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany (BMBF Project Numbers 13GW0019C and 13GW0019E).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Leibniz Universität Hannover Institute of Mechatronic Systems, 30167, Hannover, Germany

    Samuel Müller, Lüder A. Kahrs, Johannes Gaa, Sebastian Tauscher & Tobias Ortmaier

  2. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Hannover Medical School, 30625, Hannover, Germany

    Marcel Kluge, Samuel John, Thomas S. Rau, Thomas Lenarz & Omid Majdani

Authors
  1. Samuel Müller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lüder A. Kahrs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Johannes Gaa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sebastian Tauscher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marcel Kluge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Samuel John
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Thomas S. Rau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Thomas Lenarz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Tobias Ortmaier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Omid Majdani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samuel Müller.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors Tobias Ortmaier, Marcel Kluge, Samuel John, Thomas Rau, Omid Majdani and Thomas Lenarz declare being limited partners of HörSys IP GmbH & Co. KG that holds intellectual property regarding the RoboJigTM technology.

Ethical statement

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

This articles does not contain patient data.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Müller, S., Kahrs, L.A., Gaa, J. et al. Workflow assessment as a preclinical development tool. Int J CARS 14, 1389–1401 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-019-02002-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-019-02002-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation