OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare novel robotic guidance and manual approaches based on procedural accuracy, procedural time, procedural performance, image quality as well as patient dose during image-guided microwave thermoablation. METHOD: The study was prospectively performed between June 2013 and December 2013 using 70 patients. Forty randomly selected patients (group 1) were treated withmanual guidance and 30 patients (group 2) were treated using a novel robotic guidance. Parameters evaluated were procedural accuracy, total procedural time, procedural performance, quantitative/qualitative image quality and patient dose. Two-sided Student's t test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were used to test the significance of the data and p values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULT: Accuracy parameters were significantly higher in group 2 (all p < 0.05). Total procedural time showed a mean time difference of 3 min (group 2 > group 1; p = 0.0008). Volume CT dose index and dose-length product were significantly lower for group 2 compared to group 1 (all p < 0.05) for CT fluoroscopy imaging. Total procedural performance score was higher for group 2 compared to group 1 (p = 0.0001). Image quality parameters were insignificant between examined groups. CONCLUSION: The novel robotic guided approach improved the accuracy of targeting the target tumour, reduced patient dose and increased procedural performance (which influences the procedural safety) during ablation. KEY POINTS: • Few reports are available in the literature regarding robotic-assisted liver microwave ablation. • The robotic guided approach improved accuracy of localizing the target tumour. • Radiation dose on patients was reduced with the robotic guidance. • Numbers of insertions and readjustments were reduced, lowering chances of complications.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare novel robotic guidance and manual approaches based on procedural accuracy, procedural time, procedural performance, image quality as well as patient dose during image-guided microwave thermoablation. METHOD: The study was prospectively performed between June 2013 and December 2013 using 70 patients. Forty randomly selected patients (group 1) were treated with manual guidance and 30 patients (group 2) were treated using a novel robotic guidance. Parameters evaluated were procedural accuracy, total procedural time, procedural performance, quantitative/qualitative image quality and patient dose. Two-sided Student's t test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were used to test the significance of the data and p values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULT: Accuracy parameters were significantly higher in group 2 (all p < 0.05). Total procedural time showed a mean time difference of 3 min (group 2 > group 1; p = 0.0008). Volume CT dose index and dose-length product were significantly lower for group 2 compared to group 1 (all p < 0.05) for CT fluoroscopy imaging. Total procedural performance score was higher for group 2 compared to group 1 (p = 0.0001). Image quality parameters were insignificant between examined groups. CONCLUSION: The novel robotic guided approach improved the accuracy of targeting the target tumour, reduced patient dose and increased procedural performance (which influences the procedural safety) during ablation. KEY POINTS: • Few reports are available in the literature regarding robotic-assisted liver microwave ablation. • The robotic guided approach improved accuracy of localizing the target tumour. • Radiation dose on patients was reduced with the robotic guidance. • Numbers of insertions and readjustments were reduced, lowering chances of complications.
Authors: Stephen B Solomon; Alexandru Patriciu; Mark E Bohlman; Louis R Kavoussi; Dan Stoianovici Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: S Nahum Goldberg; Clement J Grassi; John F Cardella; J William Charboneau; Gerald D Dodd; Damian E Dupuy; Debra Gervais; Alice R Gillams; Robert A Kane; Fred T Lee; Tito Livraghi; John McGahan; David A Phillips; Hyunchul Rhim; Stuart G Silverman Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-04-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Roman Kloeckner; Daniel Pinto dos Santos; Jens Schneider; Levent Kara; Christoph Dueber; Michael B Pitton Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2013-08-30 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Alda L Tam; Ashraf Mohamed; Marcus Pfister; Ponraj Chinndurai; Esther Rohm; Andrew F Hall; Michael J Wallace Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2010-05-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Nour-Eldin A Nour-Eldin; Nagy N N Naguib; Martin Mack; John E Abskharon; Thomas J Vogl Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-07-28 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Rui Li; Sheng Xu; William F Pritchard; John W Karanian; Venkatesh P Krishnasamy; Bradford J Wood; Zion Tsz Ho Tse Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2018-01-05 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: L P Beyer; B Pregler; K Michalik; C Niessen; M Dollinger; M Müller; H J Schlitt; C Stroszczynski; P Wiggermann Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2016-09-21 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: L P Beyer; L Lürken; N Verloh; M Haimerl; K Michalik; J Schaible; C Stroszczynski; P Wiggermann Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2018-05-04 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: L P Beyer; B Pregler; C Niessen; M Dollinger; B M Graf; M Müller; H J Schlitt; C Stroszczynski; P Wiggermann Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2015-08-26 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Lukas Philipp Beyer; Katharina Michalik; Christoph Niessen; Natascha Platz Batista da Silva; Isabell Wiesinger; Christian Stroszczynski; Philipp Wiggermann Journal: Med Sci Monit Date: 2016-09-20
Authors: Lukas P Beyer; Benedikt Pregler; Christoph Nießen; Andreas Schicho; Michael Haimerl; Ernst Michael Jung; Christian Stroszczynski; Philipp Wiggermann Journal: PeerJ Date: 2016-08-11 Impact factor: 2.984