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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Abdominal imaging 2021-10, Vol.46 (10), p.5007-5016
Hauptverfasser: Levy, Shiran, Goldberg, S. Nahum, Roth, Ido, Shochat, Moran, Sosna, Jacob, Leichter, Isaac, Flacke, Sebastian
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
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