L P Beyer1, B Pregler2, K Michalik2, C Niessen2, M Dollinger2, M Müller3, H J Schlitt4, C Stroszczynski2, P Wiggermann2. 1. Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Regensburg, 93053, Regensburg, Germany. lukas@lukasbeyer.com. 2. Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Regensburg, 93053, Regensburg, Germany. 3. Department of Internal Medicine I, University Medical Center Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany. 4. Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Comparison of conventional CT-guided manual irreversible electroporation (IRE) of malignant liver tumors and a robot-assisted approach regarding procedural accuracy, intervention time, dose, complications, and treatment success. METHODS: A retrospective single-center analysis of 40 cases of irreversible electroporation of malignant liver tumors in 35 patients (6 females, 29 males, average age 60.3 years). Nineteen of these ablation procedures were performed manually and 21 with robotic assistance. A follow-up (ultrasound, CT, and MRI) was performed after 6 weeks in all patients. RESULTS: The time from the planning CT scan to the start of the ablation as well as the dose-length product were significantly lower under robotic assistance (63.5 vs. 87.4 min, [Formula: see text]; 2132 vs. 4714 mGy cm, [Formula: see text]). The procedural accuracy, measured as the deviation of the IRE probes with respect to a defined reference probe, was significantly higher using robotic guidance (2.2 vs. 3.1 mm, [Formula: see text]). There were no complications. There was one incomplete ablation in the manual group. CONCLUSION: Robotic assistance for IRE of liver tumors allows for faster procedure times with higher accuracy while reducing radiation dose as compared to the manual placement of IRE probes.
OBJECTIVE: Comparison of conventional CT-guided manual irreversible electroporation (IRE) of malignant liver tumors and a robot-assisted approach regarding procedural accuracy, intervention time, dose, complications, and treatment success. METHODS: A retrospective single-center analysis of 40 cases of irreversible electroporation of malignant liver tumors in 35 patients (6 females, 29 males, average age 60.3 years). Nineteen of these ablation procedures were performed manually and 21 with robotic assistance. A follow-up (ultrasound, CT, and MRI) was performed after 6 weeks in all patients. RESULTS: The time from the planning CT scan to the start of the ablation as well as the dose-length product were significantly lower under robotic assistance (63.5 vs. 87.4 min, [Formula: see text]; 2132 vs. 4714 mGy cm, [Formula: see text]). The procedural accuracy, measured as the deviation of the IRE probes with respect to a defined reference probe, was significantly higher using robotic guidance (2.2 vs. 3.1 mm, [Formula: see text]). There were no complications. There was one incomplete ablation in the manual group. CONCLUSION: Robotic assistance for IRE of liver tumors allows for faster procedure times with higher accuracy while reducing radiation dose as compared to the manual placement of IRE probes.
Authors: David S K Lu; Steven S Raman; Darko J Vodopich; Michael Wang; James Sayre; Charles Lassman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Willemien van den Bos; Hester J Scheffer; Jantien A Vogel; Peter G K Wagstaff; Daniel M de Bruin; Marcus C de Jong; Martin J C van Gemert; Jean J M C H de la Rosette; Martijn R Meijerink; John H Klaessens; Rudolf M Verdaasdonk Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2015-12-17 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Martin L Yarmush; Alexander Golberg; Gregor Serša; Tadej Kotnik; Damijan Miklavčič Journal: Annu Rev Biomed Eng Date: 2014-05-27 Impact factor: 9.590
Authors: T Peter Kingham; Ami M Karkar; Michael I D'Angelica; Peter J Allen; Ronald P Dematteo; George I Getrajdman; Constantinos T Sofocleous; Stephen B Solomon; William R Jarnagin; Yuman Fong Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2012-06-16 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: H Aselmann; T Möller; J-N Kersebaum; J H Egberts; R Croner; M Brunner; R Grützmann; T Becker Journal: Chirurg Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 0.955
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: René Michael Mathy; Parham Tinoush; Ricardo Daniel da Florencia; Alexander Braun; Omid Ghamarnejad; Boris Radeleff; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; De-Hua Chang Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-12-14 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Nina Boc; Ibrahim Edhemovic; Bor Kos; Maja M Music; Erik Brecelj; Blaz Trotovsek; Masa Bosnjak; Mihajlo Djokic; Damijan Miklavcic; Maja Cemazar; Gregor Sersa Journal: Radiol Oncol Date: 2018-10-18 Impact factor: 2.991