BACKGROUND: Clinical use of image-guided needle placement robots has lagged behind laboratory-demonstrated robotic capability. Bridging this gap requires reliable and easy-to-use robotic systems. METHODS: Our system for image-guided needle placement requires only simple, low-cost components and minimal, entirely off-line calibration. It rapidly aligns needles to planned entry paths using 3D ultrasound (US) reconstructed from freehand 2D scans. We compare system accuracy against clinical standard manual needle placement. RESULTS: The US-guided robotic system is significantly more accurate than single manual insertions. When several manual withdrawals and reinsertions are allowed, accuracy becomes equivalent. In ex vivo experiments, robotic repeatability was 1.56 mm, compared to 3.19 and 4.63 mm for two sets of manual insertions. In an in vivo experiment with heartbeat and respiratory effects, robotic system accuracy was 5.5 mm. CONCLUSIONS: A 3D US-guided robot can eliminate error bias and reduce invasiveness (the number of insertions required) compared to manual needle insertion. Remaining future challenges include target motion compensation. (c) 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
BACKGROUND: Clinical use of image-guided needle placement robots has lagged behind laboratory-demonstrated robotic capability. Bridging this gap requires reliable and easy-to-use robotic systems. METHODS: Our system for image-guided needle placement requires only simple, low-cost components and minimal, entirely off-line calibration. It rapidly aligns needles to planned entry paths using 3D ultrasound (US) reconstructed from freehand 2D scans. We compare system accuracy against clinical standard manual needle placement. RESULTS: The US-guided robotic system is significantly more accurate than single manual insertions. When several manual withdrawals and reinsertions are allowed, accuracy becomes equivalent. In ex vivo experiments, robotic repeatability was 1.56 mm, compared to 3.19 and 4.63 mm for two sets of manual insertions. In an in vivo experiment with heartbeat and respiratory effects, robotic system accuracy was 5.5 mm. CONCLUSIONS: A 3D US-guided robot can eliminate error bias and reduce invasiveness (the number of insertions required) compared to manual needle insertion. Remaining future challenges include target motion compensation. (c) 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Authors: L G Koniaris; D Y Chan; C Magee; S B Solomon; J H Anderson; D O Smith; T De Weese; L R Kavoussi; M A Choti Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: D T Gering; A Nabavi; R Kikinis; N Hata; L J O'Donnell; W E Grimson; F A Jolesz; P M Black; W M Wells Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: B S Kuszyk; J K Boitnott; M A Choti; D A Bluemke; S Sheth; C A Magee; K M Horton; J Eng; E K Fishman Journal: Radiology Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: N Izumi; Y Asahina; O Noguchi; M Uchihara; N Kanazawa; J Itakura; Y Himeno; S Miyake; T Sakai; N Enomoto Journal: Cancer Date: 2001-03-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Filip Banovac; Jonathan Tang; Sheng Xu; David Lindisch; Ho Young Chung; Elliot B Levy; Thomas Chang; Michael F McCullough; Ziv Yaniv; Bradford J Wood; Kevin Cleary Journal: Med Phys Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: D Caleb Rucker; Jadav Das; Hunter B Gilbert; Philip J Swaney; Michael I Miga; Nilanjan Sarkar; Robert J Webster Journal: IEEE Trans Robot Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 5.567