Robotic and robot-assisted skull base neurosurgery: systematic review of current applications and future directions

Abstract

OBJECTIVE The utility of robotic instrumentation is expanding in neurosurgery. Despite this, successful examples of robotic implementation for endoscopic endonasal or skull base neurosurgery remain limited. Therefore, the authors performed a systematic review of the literature to identify all articles that used robotic systems to access the sella or anterior, middle, or posterior cranial fossae. METHODS A systematic review of MEDLINE and PubMed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines performed for articles published between January 1, 1990, and August 1, 2021, was conducted to identify all robotic systems (autonomous, semiautonomous, or surgeon-controlled) used for skull base neurosurgical procedures. Cadaveric and human clinical studies were included. Studies with exclusively otorhinolaryngological applications or using robotic microscopes were excluded. RESULTS A total of 561 studies were identified from the initial search, of which 22 were included following full-text review. Transoral robotic surgery (TORS) using the da Vinci Surgical System was the most widely reported system (4 studies) utilized for skull base and pituitary fossa procedures; additionally, it has been reported for resection of sellar masses in 4 patients. Seven cadaveric studies used the da Vinci Surgical System to access the skull base using alternative, non–TORS approaches (e.g., transnasal, transmaxillary, and supraorbital). Five cadaveric studies investigated alternative systems to access the skull base. Six studies investigated the use of robotic endoscope holders. Advantages to robotic applications in skull base neurosurgery included improved lighting and 3D visualization, replication of more traditional gesture-based movements, and the ability for dexterous movements ordinarily constrained by small operative corridors. Limitations included the size and angulation capacity of the robot, lack of drilling components preventing fully robotic procedures, and cost. Robotic endoscope holders may have been particularly advantageous when the use of a surgical assistant or second surgeon was limited. CONCLUSIONS Robotic skull base neurosurgery has been growing in popularity and feasibility, but significant limitations remain. While robotic systems seem to have allowed for greater maneuverability and 3D visualization, their size and lack of neurosurgery-specific tools have continued to prevent widespread adoption into current practice. The next generation of robotic technologies should prioritize overcoming these limitations.