Milan Sigdel, Yi Fang, Zhanguo Sun, Madan Sigdel, Dechao Jiao
{"title":"Robotic navigation-assisted percutaneous liver puncture: a pilot study.","authors":"Milan Sigdel, Yi Fang, Zhanguo Sun, Madan Sigdel, Dechao Jiao","doi":"10.21037/qims-24-1584","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Liver cancer is often diagnosed at an advanced stage, rendering many cases unresectable and necessitating minimally invasive treatments such as ablation, for which accurate puncture is essential. Manual techniques are limited by steep learning curves, frequent needle adjustments, and increased radiation exposure. Robotic navigation-assisted puncture (RNAP) offers improved precision, efficiency, and safety, but its efficacy compared to that of manual puncture (MP) remains unclear. This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of RNAP in the treatment of liver tumors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From October 2023 to February 2024, 65 patients with liver tumors underwent percutaneous puncture procedures (ablation, iodine-125 implantation, and biopsy) at department of interventional radiology. They were divided into two groups: the RNAP group (n=29) and the MP group (n=36). Two techniques were compared in terms of technical success (TS), clinical success (CS), puncture scoring (PS), number of computed tomography (CT) scans, total procedure time (TPT), puncture time (PT), irradiation dose (ID), and puncture-related complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were significant differences between patients in the RNAP group and those in the MP group in terms of PS (3.02±0.68 <i>vs.</i> 2.24±0.73; P=0.01), PT (8.86±1.91 <i>vs.</i> 13.44±3.66 min; P=0.01), number of CT scans (7.03±2.30 <i>vs.</i> 11.58±4.25; P=0.01), and ID (160.76±40.60 <i>vs.</i> 230.06±86.46 mGy·cm; P=0.01); meanwhile, TS (100% <i>vs.</i> 100%; P>0.99), CS (91.50% <i>vs.</i> 91.40%; P=0.81), TPT (33.22±7.80 <i>vs.</i> 32.13±5.50 min; P=0.52), and complications (10.30% <i>vs.</i> 5.56%; P=0.47) showed no differences.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>RNAP is a useful tool for performing puncture procedures on liver tumors, which can decrease PT, CT scan times, and ID.</p>","PeriodicalId":54267,"journal":{"name":"Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery","volume":"15 2","pages":"1543-1554"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11847208/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/qims-24-1584","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Liver cancer is often diagnosed at an advanced stage, rendering many cases unresectable and necessitating minimally invasive treatments such as ablation, for which accurate puncture is essential. Manual techniques are limited by steep learning curves, frequent needle adjustments, and increased radiation exposure. Robotic navigation-assisted puncture (RNAP) offers improved precision, efficiency, and safety, but its efficacy compared to that of manual puncture (MP) remains unclear. This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of RNAP in the treatment of liver tumors.
Methods: From October 2023 to February 2024, 65 patients with liver tumors underwent percutaneous puncture procedures (ablation, iodine-125 implantation, and biopsy) at department of interventional radiology. They were divided into two groups: the RNAP group (n=29) and the MP group (n=36). Two techniques were compared in terms of technical success (TS), clinical success (CS), puncture scoring (PS), number of computed tomography (CT) scans, total procedure time (TPT), puncture time (PT), irradiation dose (ID), and puncture-related complications.
Results: There were significant differences between patients in the RNAP group and those in the MP group in terms of PS (3.02±0.68 vs. 2.24±0.73; P=0.01), PT (8.86±1.91 vs. 13.44±3.66 min; P=0.01), number of CT scans (7.03±2.30 vs. 11.58±4.25; P=0.01), and ID (160.76±40.60 vs. 230.06±86.46 mGy·cm; P=0.01); meanwhile, TS (100% vs. 100%; P>0.99), CS (91.50% vs. 91.40%; P=0.81), TPT (33.22±7.80 vs. 32.13±5.50 min; P=0.52), and complications (10.30% vs. 5.56%; P=0.47) showed no differences.
Conclusions: RNAP is a useful tool for performing puncture procedures on liver tumors, which can decrease PT, CT scan times, and ID.
背景：肝癌通常在晚期才被确诊，因此许多病例无法切除，需要进行消融等微创治疗，而准确的穿刺是必不可少的。手动技术因学习曲线陡峭、针头调整频繁和辐射暴露增加而受到限制。机器人导航辅助穿刺（RNAP）可提高精确度、效率和安全性，但与人工穿刺（MP）相比，其疗效仍不明确。本研究旨在评估RNAP治疗肝脏肿瘤的安全性和有效性：方法：2023 年 10 月至 2024 年 2 月，65 名肝脏肿瘤患者在介入放射科接受了经皮穿刺手术（消融、碘-125 植入和活检）。他们被分为两组：RNAP 组（29 人）和 MP 组（36 人）。比较两种技术的技术成功率（TS）、临床成功率（CS）、穿刺评分（PS）、计算机断层扫描（CT）次数、手术总时间（TPT）、穿刺时间（PT）、照射剂量（ID）和穿刺相关并发症：RNAP组与MP组患者在PS（3.02±0.68 vs. 2.24±0.73；P=0.01）、PT（8.86±1.91 vs. 13.44±3.66分钟；P=0.01）、CT扫描次数（7.03±2.30 vs. 11.58±4.25；P=0.01）、ID（160.76±40.60 vs. 230.06±86.46 mGy-cm；P=0.01）；同时，TS（100% vs. 100%；P>0.99）、CS（91.50% vs. 91.40%；P=0.81）、TPT（33.22±7.80 vs. 32.13±5.50min；P=0.52）、并发症（10.30% vs. 5.56%；P=0.47）无差异：结论：RNAP是对肝脏肿瘤进行穿刺手术的有效工具，可减少PT、CT扫描时间和ID。
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
