Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK), New York, New York; Weill Cornell Medical College, Medicine, New York, New York.
Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK), New York, New York.
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2024 Jun;35(6):859-864. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2024.02.023. Epub 2024 Mar 5.
To compare the effectiveness of percutaneous lung biopsy using a patient-mounted needle-driving robotic system with that using a manual insertion of needles under computed tomography (CT) fluoroscopy guidance.
In this institutional review board approved study, the cohort consisted of a series of patients who underwent lung biopsies following the intention-to-treat protocol from September 2022 to September 2023 using robot (n = 15) or manual insertion under single-rotation CT fluoroscopy (n = 66). Patient and procedure characteristics were recorded as well as outcomes.
Although age, body mass index, and skin-to-target distance were not statistically different, target size varied (median, 8 mm [interquartile range, 6.5-9.5 mm] for robot vs 12 mm [8-18 mm] for single-rotation CT fluoroscopy; P = .001). No statistical differences were observed in technical success (86.7% [13/15] vs 89.4% [59/66], P = .673), Grade 3 adverse event (AE) (6.7% [1/15] vs 12.1% [8/66], P = .298), procedural time (28 minutes [22-32 minutes] vs 19 minutes [14.3-30.5 minutes], P = .086), and patient radiation dose (3.9 mSv [3.2-5.6 mSv] vs 4.6 mSv [3.3-7.5 mSv], P = .398). In robot-assisted cases, the median angle out of gantry plane was 10° (6.5°-16°), although it was null (0°-5°) for single-rotation CT fluoroscopy (P = .001).
Robot-assisted and single-rotation CT fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous lung biopsies were similar in terms of technical success, diagnostic yield, procedural time, AEs, and radiation dose, although robot allowed for out-of-gantry plane navigation along the needle axis.
比较使用患者安装式针驱动机器人系统与在 CT 透视引导下手动插入针进行经皮肺活检的效果。
在这项经机构审查委员会批准的研究中,该队列包括一系列患者,他们在 2022 年 9 月至 2023 年 9 月期间按照意向治疗方案接受了肺活检,使用机器人(n=15)或单旋转 CT 透视引导下手动插入(n=66)。记录患者和程序特征以及结果。
尽管年龄、体重指数和皮肤到目标的距离在统计学上没有差异,但目标大小有所不同(中位数,机器人为 8 毫米[四分位距,6.5-9.5 毫米],单旋转 CT 透视为 12 毫米[8-18 毫米];P=0.001)。技术成功率(86.7%[13/15]与 89.4%[59/66],P=0.673)、3 级不良事件(AE)(6.7%[1/15]与 12.1%[8/66],P=0.298)、程序时间(28 分钟[22-32 分钟]与 19 分钟[14.3-30.5 分钟],P=0.086)和患者辐射剂量(3.9 毫西弗[3.2-5.6 毫西弗]与 4.6 毫西弗[3.3-7.5 毫西弗],P=0.398)无统计学差异。在机器人辅助的情况下,龙门架平面外的中位数角度为 10°(6.5°-16°),而单旋转 CT 透视的角度为 0°-5°(P=0.001)。
机器人辅助和单旋转 CT 透视引导的经皮肺活检在技术成功率、诊断率、程序时间、AE 和辐射剂量方面相似,尽管机器人允许沿针轴进行龙门架平面外导航。