OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of a robotic interventional radiologist (IR) assistance platform with a standard freehand technique for computed-tomography (CT)-guided biopsy and simulated radiofrequency ablation (RFA). METHODS: The accuracy of freehand single-pass needle insertions into abdominal phantoms was compared with insertions facilitated with the use of a robotic assistance platform (n = 20 each). Post-procedural CTs were analysed for needle placement error. Percutaneous RFA was simulated by sequentially placing five 17-gauge needle introducers into 5-cm diameter masses (n = 5) embedded within an abdominal phantom. Simulated ablations were planned based on pre-procedural CT, before multi-probe placement was executed freehand. Multi-probe placement was then performed on the same 5-cm mass using the ablation planning software and robotic assistance. Post-procedural CTs were analysed to determine the percentage of untreated residual target. RESULTS: Mean needle tip-to-target errors were reduced with use of the IR assistance platform (both P < 0.0001). Reduced percentage residual tumour was observed with treatment planning (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Improved needle accuracy and optimised probe geometry are observed during simulated CT-guided biopsy and percutaneous ablation with use of a robotic IR assistance platform. This technology may be useful for clinical CT-guided biopsy and RFA, when accuracy may have an impact on outcome. KEY POINTS: • A recently developed robotic intervention radiology assistance platform facilitates CT-guided interventions. • Improved accuracy of complex needle insertions is achievable. • IR assistance platform use can improve target ablation coverage.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of a robotic interventional radiologist (IR) assistance platform with a standard freehand technique for computed-tomography (CT)-guided biopsy and simulated radiofrequency ablation (RFA). METHODS: The accuracy of freehand single-pass needle insertions into abdominal phantoms was compared with insertions facilitated with the use of a robotic assistance platform (n = 20 each). Post-procedural CTs were analysed for needle placement error. Percutaneous RFA was simulated by sequentially placing five 17-gauge needle introducers into 5-cm diameter masses (n = 5) embedded within an abdominal phantom. Simulated ablations were planned based on pre-procedural CT, before multi-probe placement was executed freehand. Multi-probe placement was then performed on the same 5-cm mass using the ablation planning software and robotic assistance. Post-procedural CTs were analysed to determine the percentage of untreated residual target. RESULTS: Mean needle tip-to-target errors were reduced with use of the IR assistance platform (both P < 0.0001). Reduced percentage residual tumour was observed with treatment planning (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Improved needle accuracy and optimised probe geometry are observed during simulated CT-guided biopsy and percutaneous ablation with use of a robotic IR assistance platform. This technology may be useful for clinical CT-guided biopsy and RFA, when accuracy may have an impact on outcome. KEY POINTS: • A recently developed robotic intervention radiology assistance platform facilitates CT-guided interventions. • Improved accuracy of complex needle insertions is achievable. • IR assistance platform use can improve target ablation coverage.
Authors: Kedar N Chintapalli; Richard S Montgomery; Mustapha Hatab; Venkata S Katabathina; Kenneth Guiy Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Kai Siegfried Lehmann; Bernd Benedikt Frericks; Christoph Holmer; Andrea Schenk; Andreas Weihusen; Verena Knappe; Urte Zurbuchen; Heinz Otto Peitgen; Heinz Johannes Buhr; Jörg Peter Ritz Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2011-03-15 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Stephan Zangos; Andreas Melzer; Katrin Eichler; Cyrus Sadighi; Axel Thalhammer; Boris Bodelle; Renate Wolf; Tatjana Gruber-Rouh; Dirk Proschek; Renate Hammerstingl; Cindy Müller; Martin G Mack; Thomas J Vogl Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-03-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sara L Best; Samuel K Park; Ramy F Youssef; Ramy F Yaacoub; Ephrem O Olweny; Yung K Tan; Clayton Trimmer; Jeffrey A Cadeddu Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Marius Schwalbe; Axel Haine; Marc Schindewolf; Hendrik von Tengg-Kobligk; Tom Williamson; Stefan Weber; Iris Baumgartner; Torsten Fuss Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2016-05-27 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: F Cornelis; H Takaki; M Laskhmanan; J C Durack; J P Erinjeri; G I Getrajdman; M Maybody; C T Sofocleous; S B Solomon; G Srimathveeravalli Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2014-11-07 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Yue Chen; Sheng Xu; Alexander Squires; Reza Seifabadi; Ismail Baris Turkbey; Peter A Pinto; Peter Choyke; Bradford Wood; Zion Tsz Ho Tse Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2017-09-26 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: S Weber; K Gavaghan; W Wimmer; T Williamson; N Gerber; J Anso; B Bell; A Feldmann; C Rathgeb; M Matulic; M Stebinger; D Schneider; G Mantokoudis; O Scheidegger; F Wagner; M Kompis; M Caversaccio Journal: Sci Robot Date: 2017-03-15