Next Article in Journal
Metabolic Biomarkers Assessed with PET/CT Predict Sex-Specific Longitudinal Outcomes in Patients with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma
Previous Article in Journal
Correction: Lebbink et al. Opposite Incidence Trends for Differentiated and Medullary Thyroid Cancer in Young Dutch Patients over a 30-Year Time Span. Cancers 2021, 13, 5104
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 14
Issue 12
10.3390/cancers14122931
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Specialised Surgical Instruments for Endoscopic and Endoscope-Assisted Neurosurgery: A Systematic Review of Safety, Efficacy and Usability

by
Holly Aylmore
1,*,
Emmanouil Dimitrakakis
2,
Joshua Carmichael
3,
Danyal Z. Khan
1,4,
Danail Stoyanov
2,
Neil L. Dorward
4 and
Hani J. Marcus
1,2,4
1
UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London (UCL), London WC1N 3BG, UK
2
Wellcome/EPSRC Centre for Surgical and Interventional Sciences (WEISS), University College London (UCL), London W1W 7TY, UK
3
Department of Renal Medicine, Centre for Genetics and Genomics, University College London (UCL), London NW3 2PF, UK
4
National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London WC1N 3BG, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2022, 14(12), 2931; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14122931
Submission received: 4 May 2022 / Revised: 3 June 2022 / Accepted: 8 June 2022 / Published: 14 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Methods and Technologies Development)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

The greatest technical barrier in endoscopic and endoscope-assisted neurosurgery is the instruments employed for these approaches. This systematic review aimed to identify specialised instruments for this type of surgery and evaluate their safety, efficacy and usability. We identified 50 instruments over 60 studies that were broadly safe and effective and generally considered to be ergonomic, though the learning curve was often noted as a disadvantage. Only eight studies compared the new instrument to standard instruments and comparisons were generally favourable to the new instrument. The development of novel and specialised instruments for endoscopic and endoscope-assisted neurosurgery is an area of interest for the field, but these instruments do not meet the need for improved articulation and future development should be based on established guidelines for neurosurgical innovation.

Abstract

While there have been great strides in endoscopic and endoscope-assisted neurosurgical approaches, particularly in the treatment of deep-sited brain and skull base tumours, the greatest technical barrier to their adoption has been the availability of suitable surgical instruments. This systematic review seeks to identify specialised instruments for these approaches and evaluate their safety, efficacy and usability. Conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, SCOPUS and Web of Science were searched. Original research studies that reported the use of specialised mechanical instruments that manipulate tissue in human patients, cadavers or surgical models were included. The results identified 50 specialised instruments over 62 studies. Objective measures of safety were reported in 32 out of 62 studies, and 20 reported objective measures of efficacy. Instruments were broadly safe and effective with one instrument malfunction noted. Measures of usability were reported in 15 studies, with seven reporting on ergonomics and eight on the instruments learning curve. Instruments with reports on usability were generally considered to be ergonomic, though learning curve was often considered a disadvantage. Comparisons to standard instruments were made in eight studies and were generally favourable. While there are many specialised instruments for endoscopic and endoscope-assisted neurosurgery available, the evidence for their safety, efficacy and usability is limited with non-standardised reporting and few comparative studies to standard instruments. Future innovation should be tailored to unmet clinical needs, and evaluation guided by structured development processes.

1. Introduction

In Lewis Carroll’s 1871 novel Through The Looking Glass, and What Alice Found There, Alice falls into a new world that shifts her perception of what she thought she knew and was possible [1]. Over the past 100 years neurosurgeons have been through their own looking glass: the endoscope. In the last 30 years, many new endoscopic and endoscope-assisted neurosurgical approaches and procedures have been developed, facilitated by a rise in complimentary innovation in endoscopic instruments and surgical techniques [2].
The development of endoscopic and endoscope-assisted approaches has played a key role in treating and improving the outcomes of brain tumours. The endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach, for instance, may decrease the incidence of surgical complications when compared with traditional microsurgical cases in treating pituitary adenomas, likely a direct result of the improved visualisation of anatomy this approach provides [3]. Utilisation of endoscopic approaches in treating patients with sinonasal and ventral skull base cancers has also been found to significantly improve patient quality of life scores within the first postoperative year [4].
However, despite the great strides made in endoscopy, it is the use of surgical instruments in endoscopic approaches that has remained the greatest technical barrier to their adoption [5]. Presently, many of the instruments used in endoscopic and endoscope-assisted neurosurgical approaches have been adopted from the armamentarium of neighbouring specialties such as rhinology and urology. These include instruments that grasp, such as forceps, and instruments that cut and divide, such as scissors, knives and punches [6]. Although most such instruments are straight, some angled instruments are also in popular use, particularly in combination with angled endoscopes. Alongside these traditional instruments special classes have been developed, including microdebriders for precise tissue removal, ultrasonic devices for removal of firm tumours that are not easily suctioned and mono- and bipolar forceps for coagulation.
Historically, the introduction of new instruments such as these has been unstructured and variable. Though assessment frameworks for innovation in neurosurgery, including the development of novel neurosurgical instruments, have been developed [7,8], an instrument may be used for the first time in the form of a dedicated research study but, more often, may be published as a non-comparative trial without special institutional board review. Although many such instruments are safe and effective, the dangers of this process are obvious and have been frequently reported in the literature [9]. The usability of a new instrument, including its ergonomics and learning curve, is also an important factor when considering its adoption within the surgical community.
The aims of this review were therefore first, to identify specialised instruments that have been developed for endoscopic and endoscope-assisted neurosurgery; second, to assess the evidence for the safety and efficacy of these instruments; and third, to assess their usability.

2. Materials and Methods

This review was conducted and the results are presented in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [10]. The review protocol was registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42020209146).

2.1. Literature Search

A search of the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via Ovid), Embase (via Ovid), SCOPUS and Web of Science databases from their inception was performed on 15 June 2020. No filters or limitations were applied to the search. Keywords, Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and their synonyms for “surgical instrument”, “endoscopic surgery” and “neurosurgery” were combined. The full search strategies for each database are available in Appendix A. Following screening and selection, an additional manual search of the reference lists of included studies was conducted.

2.2. Eligibility Criteria

The following ‘PICO’ framework was employed to assess the eligibility of articles: Population: human patients, surgical models, cadavers; Intervention: specialised instruments for endoscopic or endoscope- assisted neurosurgery; Comparison: standard instruments for neurosurgery; Outcome: safety measures (blood loss, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, mortality rate), efficacy measures (EOR, operative time), assessments of ergonomics, assessments of learning curve. Eligible articles were included in the review if they met the following criteria: the specialised instrument is mechanical with the aim of manipulating tissue; the instrument was applied to endoscopic or endoscope-assisted neurosurgery; and the study was an original research paper, including preclinical and clinical studies.
Eligible articles were excluded if they met any of the following criteria: the study evaluated a device or system that was not a mechanical instrument with the aim of manipulating tissue; the instrument was not applied to endoscopic or endoscope-assisted neurosurgery; or the study was not an original research paper.

2.3. Study Screening and Selection

Results of the final searches of all databases were imported to EndNote X9.3.2 (Philadelphia, PA, USA). After removal of duplicates, an initial screening of the title and abstract of each article using the eligibility criteria was performed. The full text of articles that remained included following this screen were then read to ensure all eligibility, inclusion and exclusion criteria were met before extracting data. All stages of screening were carried out independently by two reviewers (H.A. and J.C.). Any discrepancies between the two screenings were discussed and resolved with a third reviewer (H.J.M.).

2.4. Data Extraction and Analysis

The following data were extracted from included articles: study design; study population and sample size; pathology; procedure; instrument name; company that produced the instrument and their location; type of surgery the instrument was for; instrument features; instrument function; reports of instrument malfunction; patient outcomes measures that provided evidence for safety; general comments on safety; surgical outcomes that provided evidence for efficacy; general comments on efficacy; any comparison to standard neurosurgical instruments and which instruments; any ergonomic assessment or comments on instrument ergonomics; any learning curve assessment or comment on instrument learning curve; and limitations of the instrument. Summary statistics with accompanying narrative synthesis were generated for the identified available instruments by safety, efficacy and usability metrics used. Comparative statistical analyses were not performed due to the heterogeneity of the underlying metrics.

3. Results

3.1. Search Results

Following the search strategy detailed in Section 2 and Appendix A, a total of 5757 articles were identified (Figure 1). After removal of duplicates 4143 titles and abstracts were screened. Following the full-text screen, 62 articles were identified as fully meeting the eligibility and inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. The reference lists of these 62 articles were then screened for other potentially relevant articles that were not identified through the database search. This screening yielded zero results.
Most papers, 78% (48/62 studies), were case series. An additional 11% (7/62) were reports of a novel instruments design, 5% (3/62) were controlled trials, 3% (2/62) were single case reports and 3% (2/62) were cadaver or model studies. Most studies were conducted by teams in the USA, 31% (19/62), though all continents were represented in the included studies. There is a steep rise in included papers published after 2010 (Figure 2).
Novel instruments in included studies were applied to a variety of specialities (Figure 3). The most common application of a novel instrument was for the treatment of pituitary tumours using the endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach (eight instruments), followed by endoscopic third ventriculostomy for hydrocephalus (seven instruments).

3.2. Available Instruments

A total of 50 specialised instruments for endoscopic or endoscope-assisted neurosurgery were identified (Table 1). Most available specialised instruments were for general use in all endoscopic and endoscope-assisted neurosurgical approaches, but served a single function. The most common function of these instruments was resection (28 instruments), followed by dissection (5), coagulation (5), electrocautery (4) and retraction (4) (Figure 4).
Seven available instruments, the XS Micro Instruments, Modified Suction Tip, Marburg Electrosurgical Probe, Harmonic Scalpel, Bipolar Microforceps, Bipolar Microscissors and the Handpiece, Keyhold, and Needle-Type Probes and Probe Sheaths for use with the Ultrasonic Surgical Unit were reported for general use with multiple functions.
An additional nine instruments were reported for specific approaches or procedures and capable of performing specialised single-functions: two instruments were designed for endoscopic third ventriculostomy to dilate the floor of the third ventricle; one instrument for craniosynostosis surgery; one as suction for intraventricular haematoma procedures; one to retrieve resected sections of colloid cysts; one for retraction during laminectomy; one for retraction during the endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach; one for severing the sympathetic nerve of thoracic vertebrae; and one as a cannula for resection instruments.

3.3. Evidence for Safety

Reporting of evidence for the safety of available instruments is varied with non-standardised outcomes, with 11 studies not reporting on safety at all (Supplementary Table S1).
An additional 19 out of 62 studies only provide a general comment with no objective measures such as “according to our experience in more than 100 applications this bipolar instrument is safe” [16] or report comments on objective measurements such as a decrease in operative blood loss but do not report data [59].
The highest rate of intraoperative complications is 23%, reported for the BoneScalpel and Piezoelectric System in 13 patients with craniosynostosis undergoing endoscope-assisted surgery [18]. In this study the intraoperative complication rate is combined for the use of both instruments so it is not possible to accurately assess the complication rate of each individually. The intraoperative complication rate for the NeuroBalloon [43] also cannot be calculated as the authors report “more than 1000 cases” with no definitive number given.
The highest post-operative complication rate is 50% reported for the Micro ENP Ultrasonic Handpiece in two cases of endoscopic third ventriculostomy for intraventricular tumours [36]. However, it is unclear if this complication, ventriculitis, is directly related to the instrument or the operation given that ventriculitis is a known complication [73]. The only other instruments to report a postoperative complication rate over 10% were the 6.3 mm Percutaneous Endoscopic Instrument [13] utilised to treat migrated disk herniation in 22 adult patients, the 980 nm Diode Laser [14] utilised in nine adult patients with hydrocephalus, the OmniGuide CO2 laser [55] utilised in a case series of 16 adult patients with pituitary lesions that underwent surgery using the endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach and the SONOCA Ultrasonic Aspirator [63] utilised in nine adult patients with supratentorial intraventricular tumours that underwent endoscopic resection.

3.4. Evidence for Efficacy

Reporting of the efficacy of available instruments is also varied and non-standardised (Supplementary Table S2). There is no reporting on efficacy in nine out of 62 studies and 33 only report a general comment such as “proven to be a valid and effective instrument” [41] with no outcome measures.
Mean operative time was reported in 10 studies, ranging from less than 10 min for the Artemis Neuro Evacuation Device for the treatment of a large suprasellar tumour with cavernous sinus invasion using the endoscopic endonasal approach [15] to 114 min for the Bipolar Microscissors, the mean operative time over 100 cases of intracranial astrocytoma treated with neuroendoscopic surgeries [17]. EOR, either gross, subtotal or partial was also reported in nine studies with GTR ranging from 33.33% for the SONOCA Ultrasonic Aspirator using endoscopic approaches for intraventricular tumours [62] to 100% for both the Self-Retaining Retractor used for the endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach in pituitary adenomas [60] and the Sonopet Ultrasonic Bone Aspirator when operating on skull base tumours using the endoscopic endonasal approach [67].

3.5. Evidence for Usability

3.5.1. Ergonomic Assessment

Overall, only 7 out of 62 studies report outcomes or comments relating to the ergonomics of the instrument (Supplementary Table S3). Comment on instrument ergonomics featured in six studies of six instruments: the Suction Device made of Shape Memory Alloy connected to the ATOM5 Record 55 DDS [68], the Malleable Endoscope Suction Instrument [34], the Monoshaft Bipolar Cautery [42], the Bipolar Microscissors [17], the Sonopet Ultrasonic Bone Aspirator [66] and the Handpiece, Keyhold and Needle-Type Probes and Probe Sheaths for use with the Ultrasonic Surgical Unit [31]. One study reported administering a seven-question survey in which surgeons rated the ergonomics of the final instrument design as “very good” [34].

3.5.2. Learning Curve Assessment

Comments on the learning curve of the available instruments were reported in eight out of 62 studies (Supplementary Table S4). The learning curve is reported to be improved or similar to standard instruments for the 2.0 μ m Diode Pumped Solid State (DPSS) Laser, “steep and quick” [12], the Bipolar Microscissors, “no special training is needed” [17], NeuroBalloon, “use of the NeuroBalloon catheter in our experience may shorten this learning process” [43], the Sonopet Ultrasonic Bone Aspirator, “there did not appear to be a difference in learning curve” [64] and the ZESSYS, “could reduce the technique difficulties” [72].
A study of the NICO Myriad reports the learning curve as a disadvantage [46], however they note this is the case for all devices. Though the learning curve is commented on for the SONOCA Ultrasonic Bone Aspirator, the comment pertains to the difficulty of the surgical technique rather than the use of the instrument [63].

3.6. Comparison to Standard Instruments

Comparison to standard neurosurgical instruments was part of the study design of eight out of 62 studies for five instruments (Supplementary Table S4). Kawamata, Amano, and Hori [24] comment that the Flexible Forceps used during endoscopic endonasal approaches for pituitary tumours were “able to access sites where regular dedicated instruments... could not easily reach” facilitating improved manipulation of tissue in comparison to standard excision instruments, while Kawamata and colleagues [30] report that the Harmonic Scalpel for dissection of intracranial tumours demonstrates a “much lower temperature and much smaller area of elevated temperature than monopolar or bipolar diathermy” devices. Additionally, Nakamura et al. [44] comment that the “clinical and radiological results in the NAC [New Angled Chisel] group were better” in patients undergoing the procedure with the novel instrument in comparison to patients who underwent the same procedure without the NAC. These three studies do not report any objective outcomes.
The Bipolar Microscissors used to treat intracranial astrocytomas show reduced mean blood loss and operative time in comparison to standard instruments, though whether or not the difference is significant is not reported (361 mL vs. 278 mL and 145 min vs. 114 min) [17]. Mean operative time was improved when comparing a standard cylindrical tubular retractor to the Novel Rectangular Tubular Retractor [54], standard instruments to the Piezoelectric System [56], and TESSYS instrument to the novel ZESSYS [72]. The Modified Neuroendoscope Technology (MNT): a transparent sheath and haematoma smashing aspirator utilised for endoscopic evacuation of cerebral haemorrhages reduced mean ICU monitoring time (5 days vs. 16.2 days, p = 0.000), improved 6-month mortality rate (6.7% vs. 22.5%, p = 0.036) and improved 6-month Glasgow Outcome Scale result (3.7 vs. 2.9, p = 0.021) in comparison to procedures using an existing external drainage and monitoring system [38]. Mean operative time increased (86.6 min vs. 39.7 min, p = 0.000), though given the improved safety markers this does not appear to be a significant limitation. Similarly, the Sonopet Ultrasonic Bone Aspirator improved mean blood loss (16.55 mL vs. 22.58 mL, p = 0.000) and mean operative time (31.92 min vs. 41.33 min, p = 0.000) in comparison to standard Jansen–Middleton kerrison, thru-cut and backbiter instruments for endoscopically resected supratentorial intraventricular tumours [64].

4. Discussion

4.1. Principal Findings

This systematic review identified 50 specialised instruments for endoscopic and endoscope-assisted neurosurgery across 62 studies. Notably, there was a steep rise in included papers published in the last decade.
The novelty of development in almost all instruments was in what they do, such as a new way to resect a skull base tumour, rather than in how they do it, i.e., the articulation of the instrument. The evidence for the safety and efficacy of these instruments was limited with non-standardised reporting across studies. Very few studies reported on usability assessments and in those that did all but one reported only subjective comments with no objective measures.
The development of specialised instruments for endoscopic and endoscope-assisted neurosurgery is a growing area fuelled by technological innovation. However, the innovation demonstrated in the identified studies within this review does not solve the established issues with standard instruments: namely, issues of triangulation [74] and articulation that would enhance flexibility and mobility of the instrument [75].

4.2. Safety

It is essential that the field finds a way to evaluate safety objectively in order to demonstrate that novel instruments have merit in their use and that they are an improvement on currently available instruments. This comparison is the “gold standard” in pharmacology and with adoption of the IDEAL-D and IDEAL frameworks [7,8] could become the gold standard for the development of surgical instruments in endoscopic neurosurgery. While this lack of comparison exists it is difficult to establish if the outcome measures reported for safety are a result of the instrument causing improvement or deterioration, or if this is a result of the pathology or surgical approach.

4.3. Comparison with Other Studies

Our review found that no studies used either an already established structured framework for any assessment of a novel instrument or devised a new one. While the development of such frameworks is a recent advance in improving the design and evaluation process for surgical instruments, over half of the studies identified were published after the design criteria for instruments for endoscopic neurosurgery had been reported [47,75] and just over a third of studies after publication of the IDEAL framework, developed specifically for neurosurgical instruments, in 2013 [7].
Our findings are in keeping with the wider literature on neurosurgical innovation. A recent systematic review of the use of the IDEAL framework in innovation for the endoscopic endonasal approach for skull base meningiomas identified 26 studies, none of which could be classified on the IDEAL framework, with some first-in-man studies being reported before pre-clinical studies of the same instrument [76]. However, there is some data to suggest that the IDEAL and similar frameworks are being adopted, albeit slowly, within the neurosurgical community. In a recent bibliometric analysis Ota et al. found 51 studies that cited IDEAL with the overwhelming majority being positive [77].

4.4. Strengths and Limitations

The most significant limitation of this review is that the nature of the literature required the pooling of results of hugely disparate outcomes. This invites bias in the interpretation and conclusions drawn, particularly as it was not possible to conduct comparative statistical tests of quantitative measures such as mean blood loss or operative duration due to the small sample size of studies that reported the same objective measures. However, this review was systematic and exhaustive. The search of the literature was broad, with no limiters placed on the databases, in order to ensure all the relevant literature was considered for inclusion based upon pre-established and clear criteria.

5. Conclusions

While there are many specialised instruments for endoscopic and endoscope-assisted neurosurgery available, the reporting of their safety and efficacy is limited. Specialised instruments are infrequently compared to standard instruments, meaning accurate conclusions to establish if they provide improved, cost-effective, surgical options for patients cannot be drawn. The usability of these instruments is also not regularly or objectively assessed, raising concerns about the adoption of new technologies and the effect of these measures on safety and efficacy.
This review shows that novel specialised instruments for endoscopic and endoscope-assisted neurosurgery are an area of interest for the field with many devices being developed in the past few years to overcome procedural issues with standard instruments that make them sub-optimal for these approaches. Despite the increase in new instruments, almost all of the identified devices are novel in what they do rather than in how they do it, mostly innovating the end effectors of the instrument but not the unmet need for improved articulation.
Available instruments define the applications and limitations of endoscopic and endoscope-assisted neurosurgery. Given that the identifed studies are inconsistent in their reporting of safety, efficacy and usability future research should seek to establish guidelines for surgical innovation, developing the IDEAL and IDEAL-D frameworks towards a more practical criteria that can be applied successfully in future studies of specialised instruments.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/cancers14122931/s1. Table S1: Summary of safety reporting in identified studies of available instruments for endoscopic or endoscope-assisted neurosurgery. Table S2: Summary of operative outcome reporting in identified studies of available instruments for endoscopic or endoscope-assisted neurosurgery. Table S3: Summary of reporting of ergonomic and learning curve assessment in identified studies of available instruments for endoscopic or endoscope-assisted neurosurgery. Table S4: Summary of studies reporting comparison to standard instruments.

Author Contributions

H.A.: study design (research question, search strategy development), screening of search results, data collection, data analysis, manuscript drafting, critical revisions. E.D.: study design (research question, search strategy development), data analysis, manuscript drafting, critical revisions. J.C.: screening of search results and data collection. D.Z.K.: manuscript drafting, critical revisions. D.S.: manuscript drafting, critical revisions. N.L.D.: manuscript drafting, critical revisions. H.J.M.: study design (research question, search strategy development), screening of search results, data analysis, manuscript drafting, critical revisions. All authors approved final manuscript and have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

No specific funding was received for this piece of work. E.D., D.Z.K., D.S., H.J.M., are supported by the Wellcome (203145Z/16/Z) EPSRC (NS/A000050/1) Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences, University College London. H.J.M. is also funded by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University College London. D.Z.K. is funded by an NIHR Academic Clinical Fellowship. For the purpose of Open Access, the authors have applied a CC BY public copyright license to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Appendix A. Search Strategies

Appendix A.1. Central

[MeSH surgical instruments OR instrument*] AND [endoscop* OR keyhole] AND [MeSH neurosurgery OR neurosurg*].

Appendix A.2. Medline and Embase (via Ovid)

[MeSH surgical equipment OR instrument*] AND [MeSH endoscopic surgery OR endoscop* OR keyhole] AND [MeSH neurosurgery OR neurosurg*].

Appendix A.3. SCOPUS

((TITLE-ABS-KEY (instrument*)) AND ((TITLE-ABS-KEY (endoscop*)) OR (TITLE-ABS-KEY(keyhole))) AND (TITLE-ABS-KEY (neurosurg*))).

Appendix A.4. Web of Science

(TS=instrument*) AND ((TS=endoscop*) OR (TS=keyhole)) AND (TS=neurosurg*).

References

  1. Carroll, L. Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There; Macmillan: London, UK, 1871. [Google Scholar]
  2. Hughes-Hallett, A.; Mayer, E.; Marcus, H.; Cundy, T.; Pratt, P.; Parston, G.; Vale, J.; Darzi, A. Quantifying Innovation in Surgery. Ann. Surg. 2014, 260, 205–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Cappabianca, P.; Cavallo, L.M.; Colao, A.; De Divitiis, E. Surgical complications associated with the endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach for pituitary adenomas. J. Neurosurg. 2002, 97, 293–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Castelnuovo, P.; Lepera, D.; Turri-Zanoni, M.; Battaglia, P.; Villaret, A.B.; Bignami, M.; Nicolai, P.; Dallan, I. Quality of life following endoscopic endonasal resection of anterior skull base cancers: Clinical article. J. Neurosurg. JNS 2013, 119, 1401–1409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Marcus, H.J.; Cundy, T.P.; Hughes-Hallett, A.; Yang, G.Z.; Darzi, A.; Nandi, D. Endoscopic and keyhole endoscope-assisted neurosurgical approaches: A qualitative survey on technical challenges and technological solutions. Br. J. Neurosurg. 2014, 28, 606–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Ishii, M.; Gallia, G.L. Application of technology for minimally invasive neurosurgery. Neurosurg. Clin. N. Am. 2010, 21, 585–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. McCulloch, P.; Cook, J.A.; Altman, D.G.; Heneghan, C.; Diener, M.K. IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 1: The idea and development stages. BMJ Br. Med. J. 2013, 346, f3012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Marcus, H.J.; Bennett, A.; Chari, A.; Day, T.; Hirst, A.; Hughes-Hallett, A.; Kolias, A.; Kwasnicki, R.M.; Martin, J.; Rovers, M.; et al. IDEAL-D Framework for Device Innovation: A Consensus Statement on the Preclinical Stage. Ann. Surg. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Marcus, H.J.; Payne, C.J.; Hughes-Hallett, A.; Marcus, A.P.; Yang, G.Z.; Darzi, A.; Nandi, D. Regulatory approval of new medical devices: Cross sectional study. BMJ 2016, 353, i2587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009, 339, b2535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Ludwig, H.C.; Kruschat, T.; Knobloch, T.; Teichmann, H.O.; Rostasy, K.; Rohde, V. First experiences with a 2.0-microm near infrared laser system for neuroendoscopy. Neurosurg. Rev. 2007, 30, 195–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Schuhmann, M.U.; Kural, C.; Lalla, L.; Ebner, F.H.; Bock, C.; Ludwig, H.C. Two-Micron Continuous-Wave Laser-Assisted Neuroendoscopy: Clinical Experience of Two Institutions in 524 Procedures. World Neurosurg. 2019, 122, e81–e88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Nakamura, S.; Taguchi, M. A New Percutaneous Endoscopic Instrument for Far-migrated Disk Herniation: A Retrospective Single-Institution Study. J. Neurol. Surg. Part Cent. Eur. Neurosurg. 2019, 80, 488–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Reis, R.C.; Teixeira, M.J.; Mancini, M.W.; Almeida-Lopes, L.; de Oliveira, M.F.; Pinto, F.C.G. Application of a 980-nanometer diode laser in neuroendoscopy: A case series. J. Neurosurg. 2016, 124, 368–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Yu, Q.; Fraser, J.F. Use of artemis neuro evacuation device in resection of pituitary adenoma: Initial technical note. World Neurosurg. 2019, 126, 37–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Riegel, T.; Freudenstein, D.; Alberti, O.; Duffner, F.; Hellwig, D.; Bartel, V.; Bertalanffy, H. Novel multipurpose bipolar instrument for endoscopic neurosurgery. Neurosurgery 2002, 51, 270–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Qiu, Y.; Lin, Y.; Pang, Y.; Luo, Q.; Jiang, J. Bipolar microscissors. Minim. Invasive Neurosurg. 2004, 47, 316–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chaichana, K.L.; Jallo, G.I.; Dorafshar, A.H.; Ahn, E.S. Novel use of an ultrasonic bone-cutting device for endoscopic-assisted craniosynostosis surgery. Child’s Nerv. Syst. 2013, 29, 1163–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Gerlach, R.; Rosahl, S.; Kellner, G. Calvian Endo-pen: New Coagulation Forceps for Endoscopic Endonasal Transsphenoidal Surgery. J. Neurol. Surg. Part Cent. Eur. Neurosurg. 2018, 79, 524–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Chole, R.A.; Lim, C.; Dunham, B.; Chicoine, M.R.; Dacey, R.G. A novel transnasal transsphenoidal speculum: A design for both microscopic and endoscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgery. J. Neurosurg. 2011, 114, 1380–1385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Chandra, P.S.; Kaur, K.D. Development of a Unique Retractor for Performing Endoscopic Pituitary Surgery-EASYTRAC. Neurol. India 2019, 67, 1509–1512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Frank, E.H.; Martin, J.; Hsu, F.P. An endoscopic curved Kerrison rongeur for spinal stenosis surgery. Minim. Invasive Neurosurg. 2002, 45, 254–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Frank, E.H.; Hsu, F.P. An endoscopic dural retractor for spinal stenosis surgery. Minim. Invasive Neurosurg. 2002, 45, 136–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kawamata, T.; Amano, K.; Hori, T. Novel flexible forceps for endoscopic transsphenoidal resection of pituitary tumors: Technical report. Neurosurg. Rev. 2008, 31, 65–68, discussion 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. El Damaty, A.; Manwaring, J.C.; Schroeder, H.W.S. The guillotine knife: A novel tool for safe endoscopic cutting of intracranial membranes. J. Neurosurg. 2014, 121, 719–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Patel, S.K.; Husain, Q.; Kuperan, A.B.; Eloy, J.A.; Liu, J.K. Utility of a rotation-suction microdebrider for tumor removal in endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery. J. Clin. Neurosci. 2014, 21, 142–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Waran, V.; Sek, K.; Bahuri, N.F.; Narayanan, P.; Chandran, H. A haemostatic agent delivery system for endoscopic neurosurgical procedures. Minim. Invasive Neurosurg. 2011, 54, 279–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Oertel, J.; Krauss, J.K.; Gaab, M.R. Ultrasonic aspiration in neuroendoscopy: First results with a new tool. J. Neurosurg. 2008, 109, 908–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Sawamura, Y.; Fukushima, T.; Terasaka, S.; Sugai, T. Development of a handpiece and probes for a microsurgical ultrasonic aspirator: Instrumentation and application. Neurosurgery 1999, 45, 1192–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kawamata, T.; Iseki, H.; Okada, Y.; Hori, T. Clinical application of an ultrasonically activated scalpel in neurosurgery. Neurol. Res. 2001, 23, 64–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gerboni, G.; Henselmans, P.W.J.; Arkenbout, E.A.; van Furth, W.R.; Breedveld, P. HelixFlex: Bioinspired maneuverable instrument for skull base surgery. Bioinspiration Biomim. 2015, 10, 066013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Oertel, J.; Gen, M.; Krauss, J.K.; Zumkeller, M.; Gaab, M.R. The use of waterjet dissection in endoscopic neurosurgery. Technical note. J. Neurosurg. 2006, 105, 928–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Lotan, G.; Klein, B.; Vinograd, I. New device (lotan’s hook) for endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy in the treatment of primary palmar hyperhydrosis in children. Pediatr. Endosurgery Innov. Tech. 2001, 5, 355–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Frank, E.H.; Ragel, B.R. A malleable endoscopic suction instrument: Technical note. Minim. Invasive Neurosurg. 1998, 41, 79–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Hellwig, D.; Haag, R.; Bartel, V.; Riegel, T.; Eggers, F.; Becker, R.; Bertalanffy, H. Application of new electrosurgical devices and probes in endoscopic neurosurgery. Neurol. Res. 1999, 21, 67–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Selvanathan, S.K.; Kumar, R.; Goodden, J.; Tyagi, A.; Chumas, P. Evolving instrumentation for endoscopic tumour removal of CNS tumours. Acta Neurochir. 2013, 155, 135–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Decq, P.; Le Guerinel, C.; Palfi, S.; Djindjian, M.; Kéravel, Y.; Nguyen, J.P. A new device for endoscopic third ventriculostomy. J. Neurosurg. 2000, 93, 509–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Du, B.; Shan, A.J.; Peng, Y.P.; Wang, J.; Peng, K.W.; Zhong, X.L.; Zhang, Y. A new modified neuroendoscope technology to remove severe intraventricular haematoma. Brain Inj. 2018, 32, 1142–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Jimbo, H.; Muto, J.; Masubuchi, T.; Miura, K.; Kamata, S.; Ikeda, Y. Efficacy of a new instrument for dural defect repair in anterior skull base reconstruction: A technical note. Acta Neurochir. 2013, 155, 733–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Faraj, M.K.; Al-baldawi, I.A.; Alzubaidi, F. New modified suction tip for trans nasal skull base surgery: Technical note. Interdiscip. Neurosurg. 2017, 11, 68–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Pagella, F.; Pusateri, A.; Berardi, A.; Zaccari, D.; Avato, I.; Matti, E. A novel device for intraoperative cauterization of bleeding points in endoscopic sinus surgery. Eur. Arch. Oto-Rhino-Laryngol. 2016, 273, 2257–2260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Nagasaka, T.; Tsugeno, M.; Ikeda, H.; Okamoto, T.; Inao, S.; Wakabayashi, T. A novel monoshaft bipolar cautery for use in endoscopic intracranial surgery. A short technical note. Clin. Neurol. Neurosurg. 2011, 113, 607–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Guzman, R.; Pendharkar, A.V.; Zerah, M.; Sainte-Rose, C. Use of the NeuroBalloon catheter for endoscopic third ventriculostomy. J. Neurosurg. Pediatr. 2013, 11, 302–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Nakamura, S.; Shibayama, M.; Ito, F.; Miura, Y. A new angled chisel for microendoscopic decompressive laminotomy. Clin. Spine Surg. Spine Publ. 2017, 30, 173–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Albright, A.L.; Okechi, H. Use of the NICO Myriad device for tumor and cyst removals in a developing country. Child’s Nerv. Syst. 2012, 28, 599–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Dlouhy, B.J.; Dahdaleh, N.S.; Greenlee, J.D.W. Emerging technology in intracranial neuroendoscopy: Application of the NICO Myriad. Neurosurg. Focus 2011, 30, E6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Garcia-Navarro, V.; Lancman, G.; Guerrero-Maldonado, A.; Anand, V.K.; Schwartz, T.H. Use of a side-cutting aspiration device for resection of tumors during endoscopic endonasal approaches. Neurosurg. Focus 2011, 30, E13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Goodwin, C.R.; Sankey, E.W.; Jusué-Torres, I.; Elder, B.D.; Kosztowski, T.A.; Liu, A.; Hoffberger, J.; Lu, J.; Blitz, A.M.; Rigamonti, D. The use of an aspirating/resecting device to reduce stoma closure following endoscopic third ventriculostomy for aqueductal stenosis. Oper. Neurosurg. 2015, 11, 512–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. McLaughlin, N.; Ditzel Filho, L.F.S.; Prevedello, D.M.; Kelly, D.F.; Carrau, R.L.; Kassam, A.B. Side-cutting aspiration device for endoscopic and microscopic tumor removal. J. Neurol. Surgery. Part Skull Base 2012, 73, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Mohanty, A.; Thompson, B.J.; Patterson, J. Initial experience with endoscopic side cutting aspiration system in pure neuroendoscopic excision of large intraventricular tumors. World Neurosurg. 2013, 80, 655.e15–655.e21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Schirmer, C.M.; Heilman, C.B. Complete endoscopic removal of colloid cyst using a nitinol basket retriever. Neurosurg. Focus 2011, 30, E8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Kuge, A.; Kondo, R.; Sato, S.; Mitobe, Y.; Saito, S.; Sonoda, Y. Novel burr hole dilator for endoscopic surgery for intracranial hemorrhagic lesion: Technical note. World Neurosurg. 2019, 128, 295–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Dorman, J.K. Tumor resection utilizing a minimally invasive spinal retractor with a novel cranial adaptor. Minim. Invasive Neurosurg. 2008, 51, 358–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Nakamura, S.; Shibayama, M. Rectangular tubular retractor for microendoscopic lumbar decompression. J. Neurol. Surgery. Part Cent. Eur. Neurosurg. 2017, 78, 191–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Jayarao, M.; Devaiah, A.K.; Chin, L.S. Utility and safety of the flexible-fiber CO2 laser in endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal surgery. World Neurosurg. 2011, 76, 149–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Gellner, V.; Koele, W.; Wolf, A.; Gerstenberger, C.; Mokry, M.; Stammberger, H.; Tomazic, P.V. A piezoelectric device for bone work in endoscopic anterior skull base surgery—A feasibility study in 15 patients. Clin. Otolaryngol. 2017, 42, 927–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Mancini, G.; Buonaccorsi, S.; Reale, G.; Tedaldi, M. Application of piezoelectric device in endoscopic sinus surgery. J. Craniofacial Surg. 2012, 23, 1736–1740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Nakagawa, A.; Ogawa, Y.; Amano, K.; Ishii, Y.; Tahara, S.; Horiguchi, K.; Kawamata, T.; Yano, S.; Arafune, T.; Washio, T.; et al. Pulsed Laser-induced Liquid Jet System for Treatment of Sellar and Parasellar Tumors: Safety Evaluation. J. Neurol. Surgery. Part Cent. Eur. Neurosurg. 2015, 76, 473–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Ogawa, Y.; Nakagawa, A.; Takayama, K.; Tominaga, T. Pulsed laser-induced liquid jet for skull base tumor removal with vascular preservation through the transsphenoidal approach: A clinical investigation. Acta Neurochir. 2011, 153, 823–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kutlay, M.; Gönül, E.; Düz, B.; Izci, Y.; Tehli, O.; Temiz, C.; Solmaz, I.; Daneyemez, M. The use of a simple self-retaining retractor in the endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach to the pituitary macroadenomas: Technical note. Neurosurgery 2013, 73, ons206–ons210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Cappabianca, P.; Alfieri, A.; Thermes, S.; Buonamassa, S.; de Divitiis, E. Instruments for endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal surgery. Neurosurgery 1999, 45, 392–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Cinalli, G.; Imperato, A.; Mirone, G.; Di Martino, G.; Nicosia, G.; Ruggiero, C.; Aliberti, F.; Spennato, P. Initial experience with endoscopic ultrasonic aspirator in purely neuroendoscopic removal of intraventricular tumors. J. Neurosurg. Pediatr. 2017, 19, 325–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ibá nez-Botella, G.; Segura, M.; De Miguel, L.; Ros, B.; Arráez, M.Á. Purely neuroendoscopic resection of intraventricular tumors with an endoscopic ultrasonic aspirator. Neurosurg. Rev. 2019, 42, 973–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Baddour, H.M.; Lupa, M.D.; Patel, Z.M. Comparing use of the Sonopet(®) ultrasonic bone aspirator to traditional instrumentation during the endoscopic transsphenoidal approach in pituitary tumor resection. Int. Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2013, 3, 588–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kim, K.; Isu, T.; Matsumoto, R.; Isobe, M.; Kogure, K. Surgical pitfalls of an ultrasonic bone curette (SONOPET) in spinal surgery. Neurosurgery 2006, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ledderose, G.J.; Thon, N.; Rachinger, W.; Betz, C.S. Use of an ultrasonic aspirator in transnasal surgery of tumorous lesions of the anterior skull base. Interdiscip. Neurosurg. 2019, 18, 100545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Rastelli, M.M.; Pinheiro-Neto, C.D.; Fernandez-Miranda, J.C.; Wang, E.W.; Snyderman, C.H.; Gardner, P.A. Application of ultrasonic bone curette in endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery: Technical note. J. Neurol. Surgery. Part Skull Base 2014, 75, 90–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Grunert, R.; Klietz, S.; Gardner, P.A.; Fernandez-Miranda, J.C.; Snyderman, C.H. Evaluation of bendable surgical suction devices made of shape-memory alloy for the endonasal transsphenoid removal of pituitary tumors. Ear Nose Throat J. 2018, 97, 413–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Fatemi, N.; Dusick, J.R.; Malkasian, D.; McArthur, D.L.; Emerson, J.; Schad, W.; Kelly, D.F. A short trapezoidal speculum for suprasellar and infrasellar exposure in endonasal transsphenoidal surgery. Neurosurgery 2008, 62, ONS325–ONS330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Oka, K.; Go, Y.; Yamamoto, M.; Kumate, S.; Tomonaga, M. Experience with an ultrasonic aspirator in neuroendoscopy. Minim. Invasive Neurosurg. 1999, 42, 32–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Cristante, L. A set of coaxial microneurosurgical instruments. Neurosurgery 1999, 45, 1492–1493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Ao, S.; Wu, J.; Zheng, W.; Zhou, Y. A novel targeted foraminoplasty device improves the efficacy and safety of foraminoplasty in percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy: Preliminary clinical application of 70 cases. World Neurosurg. 2018, 115, e263–e271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Bouras, T.; Sgouros, S. Complications of endoscopic third ventriculostomy. J. Neurosurg. Pediatr. PED 2011, 7, 643–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Marcus, H.J.; Seneci, C.A.; Hughes-Hallett, A.; Cundy, T.P.; Nandi, D.; Yang, G.Z.; Darzi, A. Comparative Performance in Single-Port Versus Multiport Minimally Invasive Surgery, and Small Versus Large Operative Working Spaces: A Preclinical Randomized Crossover Trial. Surg. Innov. 2015, 23, 148–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Cappabianca, P.; Esposito, F.; Cavallo, L.M.; Corriero, O.V. Instruments. In Cranial, Craniofacial and Skull Base Surgery; Springer: Milan, Italy, 2010; pp. 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Muskens, I.S.; Diederen, S.J.H.; Senders, J.T.; Zamanipoor Najafabadi, A.H.; van Furth, W.R.; May, A.M.; Smith, T.R.; Bredenoord, A.L.; Broekman, M.L.D. Innovation in neurosurgery: Less than IDEAL? A systematic review. Acta Neurochir. 2017, 159, 1957–1966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Ota, H.C.U.; Smith, B.G.; Alamri, A.; Robertson, F.C.; Marcus, H.J.; Hirst, A.; Broekman, M.; Hutchinson, P.; McCulloch, P.; Kolias, A. The IDEAL framework in neurosurgery: A bibliometric analysis. Acta Neurochir. 2020, 162, 2939–2947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cancers 14 02931 g001 550
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram of the inclusion and exclusion of studies.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram of the inclusion and exclusion of studies.
Cancers 14 02931 g001
Cancers 14 02931 g002 550
Figure 2. Year of publication of included studies.
Figure 2. Year of publication of included studies.
Cancers 14 02931 g002
Cancers 14 02931 g003 550
Figure 3. Number of novel instruments identified by neurosurgical speciality.
Figure 3. Number of novel instruments identified by neurosurgical speciality.
Cancers 14 02931 g003
Cancers 14 02931 g004 550
Figure 4. Number of novel instruments identified by function of instrument.
Figure 4. Number of novel instruments identified by function of instrument.
Cancers 14 02931 g004
Table
Table 1. Summary of available instruments for endoscopic or endoscope-assisted neurosurgery.
Table 1. Summary of available instruments for endoscopic or endoscope-assisted neurosurgery.
Name and CompanyTypeFunctionFeaturesIdentified Studies (Author, Year)
2.0 μ m Diode Pumped Solid State (DPSS) Laser, (RevoLix, LISA laser products, Katienburg, Germany)General PurposeCoagulationAvoids tissue disruption due to rapid formation and collapse of steam bubbles, precise and atraumatic tissue opening of approximately 1 mm diameter can be achievedLudwig, 2007 [11]; Schuhmann, 2009 [12]
6.3 mm Percutaneous Endoscopic Instrument, (ASAP, Umkirch, Germany)General purposeResectionOne thin and slightly curved jaw with sawtooth surface and concave part that rotates in perpendicular plane to the mouth openingNakamura, 2019 [13]
980 nm Diode Laser, (MediLaser 980 nm, DMC Equipamentos LTDA)General purposeDissectionProvides proper absorption in both water and haemoglobin, maximum continuous wave output power of 25 W, pulsed mode with frequency operation interval ranging from 0.16 to 1 kHz and pulse widths ranging from 0.5 m s to 6 s, single-pulse mode availableReis, 2016 [14]
Artemis Neuro Evacuation Device, (Penumbra, Alameda, CA, USA)General purposeResectionLong narrow “wand” shaft similar to 9-French suction, allows free movement of tipYu, 2009 [15]
Bipolar Microforceps, (Erbe GmbH, Tubigen, Germany)General purposeBipolar electrocautery, ForcepsOuter diameter 1.5 mm, length 360 mm, branches open smoothly to width of 6 mm, can be used for grasping/spreading tissue and bipolar coagulationRiegel, 2002 [16]
Bipolar Microscissors, (Authors own)General purposeBipolar electrocautery, Cutting—ScissorsPistol-shaped microscissors combined with a lead consisting of two poles of a bipolar coagulator, two 10 mm bladesQiu, 2004 [17]
BoneScalpel, (Misonix, Farmingdale, NY, USA)CrainosynostosisResectionAbility to section bone precisely while sparing soft tissueChaichana, 2013 [18]
Calvian Endo-Pen, (Sutter Medizintechnik, Freiburg, Germany)General purposeCoagulationLong straight bipolar instrument with slightly angled fine and thin tips that can be closed by compression of hand piece, angled working tips designed to enhance visibility of tip and coagulation zone in situGerlach, 2018 [19]
Chole-Dacey Transnasal Transsphenoidal Speculum, (Anspach, USA)General purposeRetractionPossible to convert between endoscopic and microscopic approach during procedure, interchangeable stainless steel anodized aluminium blades, can be constructed of nonferromagnetic materials for using during intraoperative MRIChole, 2011 [20]
EASYTRAC, (Walnut Medical, AIIMS, Delhi, India)General purposeRetractionV-shaped compressed construction, three sizes (paediatric/small/large adult), SS-titanium alloy, 0.5 mm thick, non-reflective black coatingChandra, 2019 [21]
Endoscopic Curved Kerrison Rongeur, (Authors own)General purposeResectionModified curved Kerrison rongeur with channel to fit small malleable endoscope, small enough to be readily inserted and used within lateral recessFrank, Martin, & Hsu, 2002 [22]
Endoscopic Stenosis Retractor, (Authors own)LaminectomyRetractionWhen retracting the dura instrument permits simultaneous visualisation of anatomy of lateral recess and the activity of instruments used to decompress itFrank & Hsu, 2002 [23]
Flexible Forceps, (Authors own)General purposeResectionForceps portion is 3 mm in diameter, total length 335 mm, working length 240 mm, flexible tip 10 mm longKawamata, 2008 [24]
Guillotine Knife, (Authors own)General purposeCutting —ScalpelDesigned to be used with Lotta ventriculoscope, outer diameter 2/7 mm, working length 30 mm, consists of shaft, blade and handle, cutting mechanism operates on principle of a guillotine with sharp downward-moving blade that slides into groove within footplate and cuts tissue on edge of grooveEl Damaty, 2014 [25]
Gyrus Diego Microdebrider, (Gyrus ACMI-ENT Division, Bartlett, TN, USA)General puposeResectionSuction-based powered instrument with a blunt end that consists of a hollow outer shaft with an inner rotating motor that can be attached to different blades at opening of distal tipPatel, 2014 [26]
Haemostatic Agent Delivery, (Authors own)General purposeDelivery of haemostatic agent2 tubes, internal tube connected to suction and external tube, internal tube introduced to proximal end of external tube, any conventional haemostatic agent is inserted or injected into distal end of external tubeWaran, 2011 [27]
Handpiece for SONOCA Ultrasonic Aspirator, (Sonoca, Söring, GmbH, Quickborn, Germany)General purposeResectionFrequency range 20–80 kHz, vacuum suction 0–0.9 bar, allows precise and effective aspiration of tissueOertel, 2008 [28]
Handpiece, Keyhold, Needle-Type Probes, and Probe Sheaths for use with the Ultrasonic Surgical Unit, (Olympus Optical Co., Tokyo, Japan)General purposeResection, SuctionWeight is 90 g, keyhole-type probes have 93 and 112 mm lengths with 2.2 mm tip diameter and 9.5 and 11.2 mm sheath diameters at most proximal side, needle-type probes have 89 and 171 mm lengths with 1.9 mm tip diameter and 3.5 and 3.3 mm sheath diameters at proximal side, all compatible with magnetic resonance imagingSawamura, 1999 [29]
Harmonic Scalpel, (Ethicon Endo-Surgery Inc., Cincinnati, OH, USA)General purposeCoagulation, Cutting—ScalpelVibration frequency 55,500 Hz, composed of generator, handpiece, and blade, cutting speed and coagulation can be adjustedKawamata, 2001 [30]
HelixFlex, (Authors own)General purposeResectionSteerable tip that measures 5.8 mm in diameter and 60mm in length, each layer of cables has six stainless steel cables resulting in 18 cables that are fixed at free end of top, 5 guiding plates kept in place by springs and containing guiding holes for cables are placed along length of tip, centre contains flexible and axially incompressible tubeGerboni, 2015 [31]
Helix Hydro-Jet, (Erbe GmbH, Tubigen, Germany)General purposeDissectionNarrow nozzle that is 100 or 120 µm in diameter, through this instrument sterile 0.9% isotonic saline is emitted at pressures ranging from 1 to 150 barsOertel, 2006 [32]
Lotan’s Hook, (Authors own, manufactured by Contact Medical Ltd., Ramat Hasharon 47279, Tel Aviv, Israel)Severance of the sympathetic nerveCuttingMetal hook, 43 mm long, shaft 5 mm thick, distal 3 cm of the device that contains the hook is 1.5 mm thick, hook placed at 120 degree angle to longitudinal shaft of deviceLotan, 2001 [33]
Malleable Endoscope Suction Instrument, (Authors own)General purposeSuctionMalleable 1.2 mm diameter channel soldered to side of 20 cm malleable 9-French suctionFrank & Ragel, 1998 [34]
Marburg Electrosurgical Probe, Bipolar, Flexible, (Authors own)General purposeCutting, CoagulationSingle-use bipolar flexible needle in working channel of endoscope preventing mechanical resistanceHellwig, 1999 [35]
Micro ENP Ultrasonic Handpiece, (Söring GmbH, Quickborn, Germany)General purposeResectionUltrasonic bone aspiratorSelvanathan, 2013 [36]
Modified Flexible Grasping Forceps, (Hopital Henri Mondor, Creteil, France, with assistance of Karl Storz Endoscope GmbH, Tuttlingen, Germany)ETVDilation of the floor of third ventricleTip thin enough to allow perforation of floor of ventricle but blunt shape cannot damage structures as needle could, smooth inner surface of jaws, outer surface has indentations to catch edges of ventriculostomy preventing them from slipping awayDecq, 2000 [37]
Modified Neuroendoscope Technology (MNT): a transparent sheath and haematoma smashing aspirator, (Authors own)Intraventricular haematomaSuctionTransparent sheath with 7 mm outer diameter, haematoma smashing aspirator contains 3 mm spiral suction deviceDu, 2018 [38]
Modified Nippon Medical School Type, (Fujita Ika, Tokyo, Japan)General purposeSuturingSingle-shaft 170 mm bayonet needle holder, tip bent upwards at 45 degree angle with nicks in both sides of lateral wallsJimbo, 2013 [39]
Modified Suction Tip, (Authors own)General purposeDissection, ResectionRedesigned tip making it more bulbous with longitudinal slices and blunt marginsFaraj, 2017 [40]
Monopolar Suction Cautery, (Authors own)General purposeMonopolar electrocauterySurgical endoscope composes main body of suction cautery, intranasal portion of tube covered with rubber catheter, aspiration system connected with tubePagella, 2016 [41]
Monoshaft Bipolar Cautery, (Authors own)General purposeBipolar electrocauteryDiameter 3 mm, can be manipulated inside a narrow endoscopic corridor, bipolar coagulation at 2 or 10 wattsNagasaka, 2011 [42]
NeuroBalloon, (Integra LifeSciences Corp., Princeton, NJ, USA)ETVDilation of the floor of third ventricle4-F catheter with a double-barrel violin-shaped balloon at the distal endGuzman, 2013 [43]
New Angled Chisel, (Authors own)General purposeResectionHas 4 or 5 mm wide blade that is angled at 20 degrees, hammered portion located on the end of protruded branch that extends from bottom of grip on shaft, when force is applied on hammered portion it travels in direction of angled bladeNakamura, 2017 [44]
NICO Myriad, (NICO Corporation, IN, USA)General purposeResectionHigh speed oscillating sharp inner cannula contained in stationary outer cannula with direct side window at end of outer cannula that allows surgeon to push normal tissue away from cutting apertureAlbright, 2012 [45]; Dlouhy, 2011 [46]; Garcia-Navarro, 2011 [47]; Goodwin, 2015 [48]; McLaughlin, 2012 [49]; Mohanty, 2013 [50]
Nitinoil Stone Retrieval Basket, (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA)Resection of colloid cystRetrieval of resected intraventricular tumourBasket shaped with 3-Fr Zero Tip, opens to outer diameter of about 16 mmSchirmer, 2011 [51]
Novel Burr Hole Dilator, (S&B Corporation, Chiba, Japan)General purposeExpansion/extension of burr holes27 mm long, sharp 10 mm blades on side, arc form on bottom to prevent dural tear, cordless handleKuge, 2019 [52]
Novel Dilator for the Pipeline Minimally Invasive Retractor System, (DePuy Spine, Raynham, MA, USA)General purposeDilationHoles in dilating probe allow egress of fluid and markings enable surgeon to determine depth of placement, tip is smaller to decrease trauma to tissueDorman, 2008 [53]
Novel Rectangular Tubular Retractor, (Authors own)General purposeRetractionAn almost rectangular tube, cranial and caudal sides have curved surfaces to maintain length of retractor to 16 mm, upper part has cylindrical retractor, dilators are plates inserted into one side of spinous processNakamura, 2017 [54]
OmniGuide CO2 Laser, (OmniGuide, Cambridge, MA, USA)General purposeDissectionContinuous-wave laser energy allows accurate cutting, ablation, and microcoagulation by using focused beams without excessive need to manipulate tissue, flexible-fibre allows access to narrow corridorsJayarao, 2019 [55]
Pizeoelectric System, (Synthes, Inc., West Chester, PA, USA)CrainosynostosisResectionFunctional frequencies of 25 to 39 kHz, tips are available as blades and diamond bits including an angled cutting tip of 45 degrees, ability to section bone precisely while sparing soft tissueChaichana, 2013 [18]; Gellner, 2017 [56]; Mancini, 2012 [57]
Pulse Laser-Induced Liquid Jet, (Sparkling Photon, Inc., Tokyo, Japan)General purposeDissectionBayonet-shaped catheter incorporating a jet generator made of a stainless steel tube and optical quartz fibre leading to 19 G stainless tube with metal nozzleNakagawa, 2015 [58]; Ogawa, 2011 [59]
Self-Retaining Retractor, (Authors own, made from strip of polypropylene (Essiz Orthodonic plate, Raintree Essix Inc., Sarasota, FL, USA))Elevation of redundant diaphragmaRetractionTransparent flexible material self-retaining retractor tailored to adequate width of sellar openingKutlay, 2013 [60]
Series of Tipped Instruments: ring curettes, dissectors, hooks, pimer, (Croma Gio. Batta, Padova, Italy)General purposeResectionSecure grip, barycenter of the instrument is the surgeon’s hands, elimination of bayonet-like shape with handle bent in horizontal plane to avoid interference with hands and allow distal thin part to be utilisedCappabianca, 1999 [61]
SONOCA Ultrasonic Aspirator, (Sonoca, Söring, GmbH, Quickborn, Germany)General purposeResectionFrequency range 20–80 kHz, vacuum suction 0–0.9 barCinalli, 2017 [62]; Ibanez-Botella, 2019 [63]
Sonopet Ultrasonic Bone Aspirator, (Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI, USA)General purposeResectionUltrasonic oscilation to emulsify bone limiting damage to surrounding tissue, simultaneous irrigation and aspiration functions, different disposable tipsBaddour, 2013 [64]; Kim, 2006 [65]; Ledderose, 2019 [66]; Rastelli, 2014 [67]
Suction Device made of Shape Memory Alloy connected to ATOM5 Record 55 DDS, (Authors own)General purposeSuctionCannula manufactured with a shape-memory alloy, can be adapted to a patients’ anatomy simply by bending it by hand during surgery, length of tube 150 mmGrunert, 2018 [68]
Trapezoidal Specula, (Mizuho-America Inc. Beverly, MA, USA)General purposeRetractionWorking length of 60 mm, proximal 20 mm oval-shaped segment to conform to nostril shape, middle 20 mm segment has ventrically oriented blades, distal 20 mm segment transitions to trapezoidal orientation with distal blades angled 15 degrees outward and upward or downward depending on speculum usedFatemi, 2008 [69]
Ultrasonic Aspirator Tube, (In cooperation with Olympus Optical Company, Tokyo, Japan)General purposeResectionOuter diameter 1.8 mm and power of 15–30 watts, metal tip of aspirator made to vibrate at frequency of 24 kHz, can fragment and aspirate tissue simultaneously, maximal vacuum pressure around 600 mm Hg, on/off controls of irrigation and vibration via foot switchOka, 1999 [70]
XS Micro Instruments, (Aesculap BBraun, Tuttlingen, Germany)General purposeForceps,
Cutting—Scissors		Coaxial shaft, length varies between 6–10 mm, 2 and 3 mm diameter shaftsCristante, 1999 [71]
ZESSYS, (Authors own)Targeted foraminoplastyCannula for resection instrumentsDual-cannula adjustment with thinner cannula containing guide rod/K-wire, and larger cannula for bony abrasion by trephine/bone drillAo, 2018 [72]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Aylmore, H.; Dimitrakakis, E.; Carmichael, J.; Khan, D.Z.; Stoyanov, D.; Dorward, N.L.; Marcus, H.J. Specialised Surgical Instruments for Endoscopic and Endoscope-Assisted Neurosurgery: A Systematic Review of Safety, Efficacy and Usability. Cancers 2022, 14, 2931. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14122931

AMA Style

Aylmore H, Dimitrakakis E, Carmichael J, Khan DZ, Stoyanov D, Dorward NL, Marcus HJ. Specialised Surgical Instruments for Endoscopic and Endoscope-Assisted Neurosurgery: A Systematic Review of Safety, Efficacy and Usability. Cancers. 2022; 14(12):2931. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14122931

Chicago/Turabian Style

Aylmore, Holly, Emmanouil Dimitrakakis, Joshua Carmichael, Danyal Z. Khan, Danail Stoyanov, Neil L. Dorward, and Hani J. Marcus. 2022. "Specialised Surgical Instruments for Endoscopic and Endoscope-Assisted Neurosurgery: A Systematic Review of Safety, Efficacy and Usability" Cancers 14, no. 12: 2931. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14122931

APA Style

Aylmore, H., Dimitrakakis, E., Carmichael, J., Khan, D. Z., Stoyanov, D., Dorward, N. L., & Marcus, H. J. (2022). Specialised Surgical Instruments for Endoscopic and Endoscope-Assisted Neurosurgery: A Systematic Review of Safety, Efficacy and Usability. Cancers, 14(12), 2931. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14122931

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop