Robotic Assistance in Percutaneous Liver Ablation Therapies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

A. K. Uribe Rivera, Barbara Seeliger, Laurent Goffin, Alain García-Vázquez, D. Mutter, Mariano E. Giménez
{"title":"Robotic Assistance in Percutaneous Liver Ablation Therapies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","authors":"A. K. Uribe Rivera, Barbara Seeliger, Laurent Goffin, Alain García-Vázquez, D. Mutter, Mariano E. Giménez","doi":"10.1097/as9.0000000000000406","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to identify current robotic assistance systems for percutaneous liver ablations, compare approaches, and determine how to achieve standardization of procedural concepts for optimized ablation outcomes.\n \n \n \n Image-guided surgical approaches are increasingly common. Assistance by navigation and robotic systems allows to optimize procedural accuracy, with the aim to consistently obtain adequate ablation volumes.\n \n \n \n Several databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, ProQuest, Science Direct, Research Rabbit, and IEEE Xplore) were systematically searched for robotic preclinical and clinical percutaneous liver ablation studies, and relevant original manuscripts were included according to the Preferred Reporting items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The endpoints were the type of device, insertion technique (freehand or robotic), planning, execution, and confirmation of the procedure. A meta-analysis was performed, including comparative studies of freehand and robotic techniques in terms of radiation dose, accuracy, and Euclidean error.\n \n \n \n The inclusion criteria were met by 33/755 studies. There were 24 robotic devices reported for percutaneous liver surgery. The most used were the MAXIO robot (8/33; 24.2%), Zerobot, and AcuBot (each 2/33, 6.1%). The most common tracking system was optical (25/33, 75.8%). In the meta-analysis, the robotic approach was superior to the freehand technique in terms of individual radiation (0.5582, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.0167–1.0996, dose-length product range 79–2216 mGy.cm), accuracy (0.6260, 95% CI = 0.1423–1.1097), and Euclidean error (0.8189, 95% CI = –0.1020 to 1.7399).\n \n \n \n Robotic assistance in percutaneous ablation for liver tumors achieves superior results and reduces errors compared with manual applicator insertion. Standardization of concepts and reporting is necessary and suggested to facilitate the comparison of the different parameters used to measure liver ablation results. The increasing use of image-guided surgery has encouraged robotic assistance for percutaneous liver ablations. This systematic review analyzed 33 studies and identified 24 robotic devices, with optical tracking prevailing. The meta-analysis favored robotic assessment, showing increased accuracy and reduced errors compared with freehand technique, emphasizing the need for conceptual standardization.\n","PeriodicalId":503165,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Surgery Open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Surgery Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/as9.0000000000000406","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to identify current robotic assistance systems for percutaneous liver ablations, compare approaches, and determine how to achieve standardization of procedural concepts for optimized ablation outcomes. Image-guided surgical approaches are increasingly common. Assistance by navigation and robotic systems allows to optimize procedural accuracy, with the aim to consistently obtain adequate ablation volumes. Several databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, ProQuest, Science Direct, Research Rabbit, and IEEE Xplore) were systematically searched for robotic preclinical and clinical percutaneous liver ablation studies, and relevant original manuscripts were included according to the Preferred Reporting items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The endpoints were the type of device, insertion technique (freehand or robotic), planning, execution, and confirmation of the procedure. A meta-analysis was performed, including comparative studies of freehand and robotic techniques in terms of radiation dose, accuracy, and Euclidean error. The inclusion criteria were met by 33/755 studies. There were 24 robotic devices reported for percutaneous liver surgery. The most used were the MAXIO robot (8/33; 24.2%), Zerobot, and AcuBot (each 2/33, 6.1%). The most common tracking system was optical (25/33, 75.8%). In the meta-analysis, the robotic approach was superior to the freehand technique in terms of individual radiation (0.5582, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.0167–1.0996, dose-length product range 79–2216 mGy.cm), accuracy (0.6260, 95% CI = 0.1423–1.1097), and Euclidean error (0.8189, 95% CI = –0.1020 to 1.7399). Robotic assistance in percutaneous ablation for liver tumors achieves superior results and reduces errors compared with manual applicator insertion. Standardization of concepts and reporting is necessary and suggested to facilitate the comparison of the different parameters used to measure liver ablation results. The increasing use of image-guided surgery has encouraged robotic assistance for percutaneous liver ablations. This systematic review analyzed 33 studies and identified 24 robotic devices, with optical tracking prevailing. The meta-analysis favored robotic assessment, showing increased accuracy and reduced errors compared with freehand technique, emphasizing the need for conceptual standardization.
经皮肝脏消融治疗中的机器人辅助:系统回顾与元分析
本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在确定目前用于经皮肝脏消融术的机器人辅助系统,比较各种方法,并确定如何实现程序概念的标准化,以优化消融效果。 图像引导手术方法越来越普遍。通过导航和机器人系统的辅助,可以优化手术的准确性,从而持续获得足够的消融量。 我们在多个数据库(PubMed/MEDLINE、ProQuest、Science Direct、Research Rabbit 和 IEEE Xplore)中系统地搜索了机器人临床前和临床经皮肝脏消融研究,并根据《系统综述和元分析首选报告项目》指南纳入了相关原稿。研究终点包括设备类型、插入技术(徒手或机器人)、手术计划、执行和确认。我们进行了一项荟萃分析,包括从辐射剂量、准确性和欧氏误差等方面对徒手和机器人技术进行的比较研究。 33/755项研究符合纳入标准。据报道,经皮肝脏手术使用了24种机器人设备。使用最多的是MAXIO机器人(8/33;24.2%)、Zerobot和AcuBot(各2/33,6.1%)。最常用的跟踪系统是光学系统(25/33,75.8%)。在荟萃分析中,就个体辐射(0.5582,95% 置信区间 [CI] = 0.0167-1.0996,剂量-长度乘积范围 79-2216 mGy.cm)、准确性(0.6260,95% CI = 0.1423-1.1097)和欧氏误差(0.8189,95% CI = -0.1020 至 1.7399)而言,机器人方法优于徒手技术。 与手动插入涂抹器相比,机器人辅助经皮消融治疗肝脏肿瘤的效果更佳,误差更小。为了便于比较用于衡量肝脏消融结果的不同参数,有必要对概念和报告进行标准化。图像引导手术的应用越来越广泛,这鼓励了机器人辅助经皮肝脏消融术。这篇系统性综述分析了33项研究,确定了24种以光学跟踪为主的机器人设备。荟萃分析结果表明,与徒手技术相比,机器人评估的准确性更高,误差更小,因此机器人评估更受青睐,同时也强调了概念标准化的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信