Forces Applied at the Skull Base during Transnasal Endoscopic Transsphenoidal Pituitary Tumor Excision

Abstract

Objectives Our laboratory is developing a surgical robotic system to further improve dexterity and visualization that will allow for broader application of transnasal skull base surgery. To optimize this system, intraoperative force data are required. Using a modified curette, force data were recorded and analyzed during pituitary tumor excision.

Design A neurosurgical curette was modified by the addition of a force sensor. The instrument was validated in an in vitro model to measure forces during simulated pituitary tumor excision. Following this, intraoperative force data from three patients during transnasal endoscopic excision of pituitary tumors was obtained.

Setting Academic medical center.

Main Outcome Measures Forces applied at the skull base during surgical excision of pituitary tumors.

Results Average forces applied during in vitro testing ranged from 0.1 to 0.15 N. Average forces recorded during in vivo testing ranged from 0.1 to 0.5 N. Maximal forces occurred with collisions of the bony sella. The average maximal force was 1.61 N. There were no complications related to the use of the modified curette.

Conclusions Forces to remove pituitary tumor are small and are similar between patients. The in vitro model presented here is adequate for further testing of a robotic skull base surgery system.

Keywords

skull base - endoscopic - transnasal - pituitary - Cushing adenoma - surgical robotics - robot - sensor - force

• References

• 1 Casler JD, Doolittle AM, Mair EA. Endoscopic surgery of the anterior skull base. Laryngoscope 2005; 115 (1) 16-24
• 2 Kabil MS, Eby JB, Shahinian HK. Fully endoscopic endonasal vs. transseptal transsphenoidal pituitary surgery. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 2005; 48 (6) 348-354
• 3 Zada G, Kelly DF, Cohan P, Wang C, Swerdloff R. Endonasal transsphenoidal approach for pituitary adenomas and other sellar lesions: an assessment of efficacy, safety, and patient impressions. J Neurosurg 2003; 98 (2) 350-358
• 4 Tabaee A, Anand VK, Barrón Y , et al. Endoscopic pituitary surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurosurg 2009; 111 (3) 545-554
• 5 Jho HD, Carrau RL. Endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal surgery: experience with 50 patients. J Neurosurg 1997; 87 (1) 44-51
• 6 Jho HD. Endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery. J Neurooncol 2001; 54 (2) 187-195
• 7 Rudnik A, Zawadzki T, Wojtacha M , et al. Endoscopic transnasal transsphenoidal treatment of pathology of the sellar region. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 2005; 48 (2) 101-107
• 8 Koren I, Hadar T, Rappaport ZH, Yaniv E. Endoscopic transnasal transsphenoidal microsurgery versus the sublabial approach for the treatment of pituitary tumors: endonasal complications. Laryngoscope 1999; 109 (11) 1838-1840
• 9 Cho D-Y, Liau W-R. Comparison of endonasal endoscopic surgery and sublabial microsurgery for prolactinomas. Surg Neurol 2002; 58 (6) 371-375 , discussion 375–376
• 10 Sheehan MT, Atkinson JL, Kasperbauer JL, Erickson BJ, Nippoldt TB. Preliminary comparison of the endoscopic transnasal vs the sublabial transseptal approach for clinically nonfunctioning pituitary macroadenomas. Mayo Clin Proc 1999; 74 (7) 661-670
• 11 Cappabianca P, Cavallo LM, Colao A, de Divitiis E. Surgical complications associated with the endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach for pituitary adenomas. J Neurosurg 2002; 97 (2) 293-298
• 12 White DR, Sonnenburg RE, Ewend MG, Senior BA. Safety of minimally invasive pituitary surgery (MIPS) compared with a traditional approach. Laryngoscope 2004; 114 (11) 1945-1948
• 13 Kelley RT, Smith II JL, Rodzewicz GM. Transnasal endoscopic surgery of the pituitary: modifications and results over 10 years. Laryngoscope 2006; 116 (9) 1573-1576
• 14 Shah S, Har-El G. Diabetes insipidus after pituitary surgery: incidence after traditional versus endoscopic transsphenoidal approaches. Am J Rhinol 2001; 15 (6) 377-379
• 15 Cappabianca P, Cavallo LM, de Divitiis E. Endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal surgery. Neurosurgery 2004; 55 (4) 933-940 , discussion 940–941
• 16 de Divitiis E, Cappabianca P, Cavallo LM. Endoscopic transsphenoidal approach: adaptability of the procedure to different sellar lesions. Neurosurgery 2002; 51 (3) 699-705, discussion 705–707
• 17 Burgner J, Swaney PJ, Rucker DC , et al. A bimanual teleoperated system for endonasal skull base surgery. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2517–2523, 2011
• 18 Tingelhoff K, Wagner I, Eichhorn K , et al. Sensor-based force measurement during FESS for robot assisted surgery. GMS Current Topics in Computer and Robot Assisted Surgery 2007; 2 (1) 1-6
• 19 Ross PD, Joice P, Nassif RG, White PS. Surgical instrument force exerted during endoscopic sinus surgery: differences within the ethmoid sinus complex. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2010; 24 (1) 76-80
• 20 Trejos AL, Patel RV, Naish MD. Force sensing and its application in minimally invasive surgery and therapy: a survey. Proc Inst Mech Eng, C J Mech Eng Sci 2010; 224 (7) 1435-1454