4.6 Article

Comparison of Robot-Assisted and Manual Cannula Insertion in Simulated Big-Bubble Deep Anterior Lamellar Keratoplasty

Journal

MICROMACHINES
Volume 14, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/mi14061261

Keywords

robotic assistance; intraoperative OCT; DALK

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compared the efficacy of robot-assisted and manual cannula insertion in simulated big-bubble deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty (DALK). Novice surgeons trained in either manual or robot-assisted techniques were able to successfully generate an airtight tunnel and deep stromal demarcation plane in most cases. However, the use of intraoperative OCT and robotic assistance resulted in a significantly higher depth of achieved detachment in non-perforated cases compared to manual trials. This research suggests that robot-assisted DALK, especially in conjunction with intraoperative OCT, may offer certain advantages over manual techniques.
This study aimed to compare the efficacy of robot-assisted and manual cannula insertion in simulated big-bubble deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty (DALK). Novice surgeons with no prior experience in performing DALK were trained to perform the procedure using manual or robot-assisted techniques. The results showed that both methods could generate an airtight tunnel in the porcine cornea, and result in successful generation of a deep stromal demarcation plane representing sufficient depth reached for big-bubble generation in most cases. However, the combination of intraoperative OCT and robotic assistance received a significant increase in the depth of achieved detachment in non-perforated cases, comprising a mean of 89% as opposed to 85% of the cornea in manual trials. This research suggests that robot-assisted DALK may offer certain advantages over manual techniques, particularly when used in conjunction with intraoperative OCT.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available