Spenkelink Ilse M, Heidkamp Jan, Avital Yaniv, Fütterer Jurgen J
Department of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Department of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Eur J Radiol. 2023 May;162:110753. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.110753. Epub 2023 Feb 24.
To evaluate the performance of a novel robot for CT-guided needle positioning procedures and compare it to the freehand technique in an abdominal phantom.
One interventional radiology fellow and one experienced interventional radiologist (IR) performed twelve robot-assisted and twelve freehand needle positionings in a phantom over predetermined trajectories. The robot automatically aimed a needle-guide according to the planned trajectories, after which the clinician manually inserted the needle. Using repeated CT scans, the needle position was assessed and adjusted if the clinician deemed it necessary. Technical success, accuracy, number of position adjustments, and procedure time were measured. All outcomes were analyzed using descriptive statistics and were compared between the robot-assisted and freehand procedures using the paired t-test and Wilcoxon signed rank test.
Compared with the freehand technique, the robot system improved the number of technically successfully needle targeting (20/24 vs 14/24), with higher accuracy (mean Euclidean deviation from target center: 3.5 ± 1.8 mm vs 4.6 ± 2.1 mm, p = 0.02) and required fewer needle position adjustments (0.0 ± 0.2 steps vs 1.7 ± 0.9 steps, p < 0.001), respectively. The robot improved the needle positioning for both, the fellow and the expert IR, compared to their freehand performances, with more improvement for the fellow than for the expert IR. The procedure time was similar for the robot-assisted and freehand procedures (19.5 ± 9.2 min. vs 21.0 ± 6.9 min., p = 0.777).
CT-guided needle positioning with the robot was more successful and accurate than freehand needle positioning and required fewer needle position adjustments without prolonging the procedure.
评估一种新型机器人在CT引导下针定位操作中的性能，并在腹部模型中将其与徒手技术进行比较。
一名介入放射科住院医师和一名经验丰富的介入放射科医生（IR）在模型中按照预定轨迹进行了12次机器人辅助和12次徒手针定位。机器人根据计划轨迹自动对准针引导器，然后临床医生手动插入针。使用重复CT扫描评估针的位置，如有必要临床医生可进行调整。测量技术成功率、准确性、位置调整次数和操作时间。所有结果均使用描述性统计进行分析，并使用配对t检验和Wilcoxon符号秩检验对机器人辅助和徒手操作进行比较。
与徒手技术相比，机器人系统提高了技术上成功的针靶向数量（20/24对14/24），具有更高的准确性（与目标中心的平均欧几里得偏差：3.5±1.8mm对4.6±2.1mm，p = 0.02），并且分别需要更少的针位置调整（0.0±0.2步对1.7±0.9步，p < 0.001）。与徒手操作相比，机器人对住院医师和专家IR的针定位均有改善，住院医师的改善比专家IR更多。机器人辅助和徒手操作的操作时间相似（19.5±9.2分钟对21.0±6.9分钟，p = 0.777）。
与徒手针定位相比，机器人辅助的CT引导针定位更成功、更准确，需要更少的针位置调整，且不延长操作时间。
