Clinical evaluation of a robotic system for precise CT-guided percutaneous procedures
Purpose To assess accuracy and compare protocols for CT-guided needle insertion for clinical biopsies using a hands-free robotic system, balancing system accuracy with duration of procedure and radiation dose. Methods Thirty-two percutaneous abdominal and pelvic biopsies were performed and analyzed...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Abdominal imaging 2021-10, Vol.46 (10), p.5007-5016 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Purpose
To assess accuracy and compare protocols for CT-guided needle insertion for clinical biopsies using a hands-free robotic system, balancing system accuracy with duration of procedure and radiation dose.
Methods
Thirty-two percutaneous abdominal and pelvic biopsies were performed and analyzed at two centers (Center 1
n
= 11; Center 2
n
= 21) as part of an ongoing prospective, multi-center study. CT datasets were obtained for planning and controlled placement of 17 g needles using a patient-mounted, CT-guided robotic system. Planning included target selection, skin entry point, and predetermined checkpoints. Additional CT imaging was performed at checkpoints to confirm needle location and permit stepwise correction of the trajectory. Center 1 used a more conservative approach with multiple checkpoints, whereas Center 2 used fewer checkpoints. Scanning and needle advancement were performed under respiratory gating. Accuracy, radiation dose, and steering duration were compared.
Results
Overall accuracy was 1.6 ± 1.5 mm (1.9 ± 1.2 mm Center 1; 1.5 ± 1.6 mm Center 2;
p
= 0.55). Mean distance to target was 86.2 ± 27.1 mm (
p
= 0.18 between centers). Center 1 used 4.6 ± 0.8 checkpoints, whereas Center 2 used 1.8 ± 0.6 checkpoints (
p
|
---|---|
ISSN: | 2366-004X 2366-0058 |
DOI: | 10.1007/s00261-021-03175-9 |