PURPOSE: To demonstrate the utility of a robotic needle-guidance template device as compared to a manual template for in-bore 3T transperineal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This two-arm mixed retrospective-prospective study included 99 cases of targeted transperineal prostate biopsies. The biopsy needles were aimed at suspicious foci noted on multiparametric 3T MRI using manual template (historical control) as compared with a robotic template. The following data were obtained: the accuracy of average and closest needle placement to the focus, histologic yield, percentage of cancer volume in positive core samples, complication rate, and time to complete the procedure. RESULTS: In all, 56 cases were performed using the manual template and 43 cases were performed using the robotic template. The mean accuracy of the best needle placement attempt was higher in the robotic group (2.39 mm) than the manual group (3.71 mm, P < 0.027). The mean core procedure time was shorter in the robotic (90.82 min) than the manual group (100.63 min, P < 0.030). Percentage of cancer volume in positive core samples was higher in the robotic group (P < 0.001). Cancer yields and complication rates were not statistically different between the two subgroups (P = 0.557 and P = 0.172, respectively). CONCLUSION: The robotic needle-guidance template helps accurate placement of biopsy needles in MRI-guided core biopsy of prostate cancer.
PURPOSE: To demonstrate the utility of a robotic needle-guidance template device as compared to a manual template for in-bore 3T transperineal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This two-arm mixed retrospective-prospective study included 99 cases of targeted transperineal prostate biopsies. The biopsy needles were aimed at suspicious foci noted on multiparametric 3T MRI using manual template (historical control) as compared with a robotic template. The following data were obtained: the accuracy of average and closest needle placement to the focus, histologic yield, percentage of cancer volume in positive core samples, complication rate, and time to complete the procedure. RESULTS: In all, 56 cases were performed using the manual template and 43 cases were performed using the robotic template. The mean accuracy of the best needle placement attempt was higher in the robotic group (2.39 mm) than the manual group (3.71 mm, P < 0.027). The mean core procedure time was shorter in the robotic (90.82 min) than the manual group (100.63 min, P < 0.030). Percentage of cancer volume in positive core samples was higher in the robotic group (P < 0.001). Cancer yields and complication rates were not statistically different between the two subgroups (P = 0.557 and P = 0.172, respectively). CONCLUSION: The robotic needle-guidance template helps accurate placement of biopsy needles in MRI-guided core biopsy of prostate cancer.
Authors: Aristotelis G Anastasiadis; Matthias P Lichy; Udo Nagele; Markus A Kuczyk; Axel S Merseburger; Joerg Hennenlotter; Stefan Corvin; Karl-Dietrich Sievert; Claus D Claussen; Arnulf Stenzl; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2006-03-24 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Andriy Fedorov; Kemal Tuncali; Fiona M Fennessy; Junichi Tokuda; Nobuhiko Hata; William M Wells; Ron Kikinis; Clare M Tempany Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-05-29 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Peter A Pinto; Paul H Chung; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Angelo A Baccala; Jochen Kruecker; Compton J Benjamin; Sheng Xu; Pingkun Yan; Samuel Kadoury; Celene Chua; Julia K Locklin; Baris Turkbey; Joanna H Shih; Stacey P Gates; Carey Buckner; Gennady Bratslavsky; W Marston Linehan; Neil D Glossop; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-08-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Caroline M A Hoeks; Martijn G Schouten; Joyce G R Bomers; Stefan P Hoogendoorn; Christina A Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; Thomas Hambrock; Henk Vergunst; J P Michiel Sedelaar; Jurgen J Fütterer; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Sang-Eun Song; Junichi Tokuda; Kemal Tuncali; Clare M Tempany; Elizabeth Zhang; Nobuhiko Hata Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2013-01-15 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: John V Hegde; Robert V Mulkern; Lawrence P Panych; Fiona M Fennessy; Andriy Fedorov; Stephan E Maier; Clare M C Tempany Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Niravkumar A Patel; Christopher J Nycz; Paulo A Carvalho; Katie Y Gandomi; Radian Gondokaryono; Gang Li; Tamas Heffter; Everette Clif Burdette; Julie G Pilitsis; Gregory S Fischer Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2020-02-17 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Niravkumar A Patel; Gang Li; Weijian Shang; Marek Wartenberg; Tamas Heffter; Everette C Burdette; Iulian Iordachita; Junichi Tokuda; Nobuhiko Hata; Clare M Tempany; Gregory S Fischer Journal: J Med Robot Res Date: 2018-05-15
Authors: Sadhna Verma; Peter L Choyke; Steven C Eberhardt; Aytekin Oto; Clare M Tempany; Baris Turkbey; Andrew B Rosenkrantz Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Alireza Mehrtash; Mohsen Ghafoorian; Guillaume Pernelle; Alireza Ziaei; Friso G Heslinga; Kemal Tuncali; Andriy Fedorov; Ron Kikinis; Clare M Tempany; William M Wells; Purang Abolmaesumi; Tina Kapur Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2018-10-18 Impact factor: 10.048