F Cornelis1,2, H Takaki1, M Laskhmanan3, J C Durack1, J P Erinjeri1, G I Getrajdman1, M Maybody1, C T Sofocleous1, S B Solomon1, G Srimathveeravalli4. 1. Interventional Radiology Service, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, Pellegrin Hospital, Place Amélie Raba Léon, 33076, Bordeaux, France. 3. Perfint Healthcare Inc, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. 4. Interventional Radiology Service, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA. srimaths@mskcc.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare CT fluoroscopy-guided manual and CT-guided robotic positioning system (RPS)-assisted needle placement by experienced IR physicians to targets in swine liver. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Manual and RPS-assisted needle placement was performed by six experienced IR physicians to four 5 mm fiducial seeds placed in swine liver (n = 6). Placement performance was assessed for placement accuracy, procedure time, number of confirmatory scans, needle manipulations, and procedure radiation dose. Intra-modality difference in performance for each physician was assessed using paired t test. Inter-physician performance variation for each modality was analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: Paired comparison of manual and RPS-assisted placements to a target by the same physician indicated accuracy outcomes was not statistically different (manual: 4.53 mm; RPS: 4.66 mm; p = 0.41), but manual placement resulted in higher total radiation dose (manual: 1075.77 mGy/cm; RPS: 636.4 mGy/cm; p = 0.03), required more confirmation scans (manual: 6.6; RPS: 1.6; p < 0.0001) and needle manipulations (manual: 4.6; RPS: 0.4; p < 0.0001). Procedure time for RPS was longer than manual placement (manual: 6.12 min; RPS: 9.7 min; p = 0.0003). Comparison of inter-physician performance during manual placement indicated significant differences in the time taken to complete placements (p = 0.008) and number of repositions (p = 0.04) but not in other study measures (p > 0.05). Comparison of inter-physician performance during RPS-assisted placement suggested statistically significant differences in procedure time (p = 0.02) and not in other study measures (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: CT-guided RPS-assisted needle placement reduced radiation dose, number of confirmatory scans, and needle manipulations when compared to manual needle placement by experienced IR physicians, with equivalent accuracy.
PURPOSE: To compare CT fluoroscopy-guided manual and CT-guided robotic positioning system (RPS)-assisted needle placement by experienced IR physicians to targets in swine liver. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Manual and RPS-assisted needle placement was performed by six experienced IR physicians to four 5 mm fiducial seeds placed in swine liver (n = 6). Placement performance was assessed for placement accuracy, procedure time, number of confirmatory scans, needle manipulations, and procedure radiation dose. Intra-modality difference in performance for each physician was assessed using paired t test. Inter-physician performance variation for each modality was analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: Paired comparison of manual and RPS-assisted placements to a target by the same physician indicated accuracy outcomes was not statistically different (manual: 4.53 mm; RPS: 4.66 mm; p = 0.41), but manual placement resulted in higher total radiation dose (manual: 1075.77 mGy/cm; RPS: 636.4 mGy/cm; p = 0.03), required more confirmation scans (manual: 6.6; RPS: 1.6; p < 0.0001) and needle manipulations (manual: 4.6; RPS: 0.4; p < 0.0001). Procedure time for RPS was longer than manual placement (manual: 6.12 min; RPS: 9.7 min; p = 0.0003). Comparison of inter-physician performance during manual placement indicated significant differences in the time taken to complete placements (p = 0.008) and number of repositions (p = 0.04) but not in other study measures (p > 0.05). Comparison of inter-physician performance during RPS-assisted placement suggested statistically significant differences in procedure time (p = 0.02) and not in other study measures (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: CT-guided RPS-assisted needle placement reduced radiation dose, number of confirmatory scans, and needle manipulations when compared to manual needle placement by experienced IR physicians, with equivalent accuracy.
Authors: Stephen B Solomon; Alexandru Patriciu; Mark E Bohlman; Louis R Kavoussi; Dan Stoianovici Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Richard Pollock; Pierre Mozer; Thomas J Guzzo; Jonathan Marx; Brian Matlaga; Doru Petrisor; Bogdan Vigaru; Shadie Badaan; Dan Stoianovici; Mohamad E Allaf Journal: J Endourol Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Gladwin C Hui; Kemal Tuncali; Servet Tatli; Paul R Morrison; Stuart G Silverman Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2008-07-21 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Seyed MohammadReza Sajadi; Seyed Mojtaba Karbasi; Henrik Brun; Jim Tørresen; Ole Jacob Elle; Kim Mathiassen Journal: Front Robot AI Date: 2022-06-15
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: Abigail J Fong; Camille L Stewart; Kelly Lafaro; Christopher J LaRocca; Yuman Fong; Joseph D Femino; Brooke Crawford Journal: Updates Surg Date: 2021-01-04