Efficacy and Safety of a Medical Robot for Non-Face-to-Face Nasopharyngeal Swab Specimen Collection: Nonclinical and Clinical Trial Findings for COVID-19 Testing.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q1 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-02 DOI:10.1177/19458924251323363
Jae-Min Shin, Munsoo Han, Dabin Lee, Joonho Seo, Jeoung-Min Lee, Yeongjun Chang, Tae Hoon Kim
{"title":"Efficacy and Safety of a Medical Robot for Non-Face-to-Face Nasopharyngeal Swab Specimen Collection: Nonclinical and Clinical Trial Findings for COVID-19 Testing.","authors":"Jae-Min Shin, Munsoo Han, Dabin Lee, Joonho Seo, Jeoung-Min Lee, Yeongjun Chang, Tae Hoon Kim","doi":"10.1177/19458924251323363","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ObjectivesTo meet the high demand for polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests to diagnose COVID-19 and rapidly control the outbreak, an efficient and safe molecular diagnostic protocol is necessary. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of the medical robot developed for non-face-to-face nasopharyngeal swab specimen collection.MethodsIn a nonclinical study, an otorhinolaryngologist collected swab specimens manually and using a medical robot. In a single-institution, randomized, open-label, prospective, exploratory clinical trial, nasopharyngeal swab specimens were collected from the enrolled participants both manually and by using the medical robot.ResultsEvaluation of the efficacy and safety of nasopharyngeal swab collection using a medical robot was assessed. After the operation of the robot, subjective discomfort experienced by the participants and any side effects or abnormalities in the nose were also monitored. Preliminary nonclinical data revealed comparable results between robotic and manual methods in terms of RNA metrics and cytokeratin-8 expression. Minor initial damage to A549 cells by the robot improved with subsequent use. In the clinical setting, the robot-assisted technique yielded a 92.31% detection rate for human RNase P, while the manual method achieved 100%. Post-swabbing discomfort reported by participants was similar for both methods and resolved within 48 h.ConclusionsThe medical robot system could efficiently, safely, and accurately collect nasopharyngeal swab samples in a non-face-to-face manner. Its installation in respiratory clinics, airports, or ports could minimize the infection risk between individuals and healthcare workers, thereby contributing to an efficient distribution of medical resources.</p>","PeriodicalId":7650,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy","volume":" ","pages":"220-228"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19458924251323363","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ObjectivesTo meet the high demand for polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests to diagnose COVID-19 and rapidly control the outbreak, an efficient and safe molecular diagnostic protocol is necessary. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of the medical robot developed for non-face-to-face nasopharyngeal swab specimen collection.MethodsIn a nonclinical study, an otorhinolaryngologist collected swab specimens manually and using a medical robot. In a single-institution, randomized, open-label, prospective, exploratory clinical trial, nasopharyngeal swab specimens were collected from the enrolled participants both manually and by using the medical robot.ResultsEvaluation of the efficacy and safety of nasopharyngeal swab collection using a medical robot was assessed. After the operation of the robot, subjective discomfort experienced by the participants and any side effects or abnormalities in the nose were also monitored. Preliminary nonclinical data revealed comparable results between robotic and manual methods in terms of RNA metrics and cytokeratin-8 expression. Minor initial damage to A549 cells by the robot improved with subsequent use. In the clinical setting, the robot-assisted technique yielded a 92.31% detection rate for human RNase P, while the manual method achieved 100%. Post-swabbing discomfort reported by participants was similar for both methods and resolved within 48 h.ConclusionsThe medical robot system could efficiently, safely, and accurately collect nasopharyngeal swab samples in a non-face-to-face manner. Its installation in respiratory clinics, airports, or ports could minimize the infection risk between individuals and healthcare workers, thereby contributing to an efficient distribution of medical resources.

非面对面鼻咽拭子标本采集医疗机器人的有效性和安全性:COVID-19检测的非临床和临床试验结果
目的:为满足对聚合酶链反应(PCR)检测诊断新冠肺炎的高需求,快速控制疫情,需要一种高效、安全的分子诊断方案。在本研究中,我们评估了用于非面对面鼻咽拭子标本采集的医疗机器人的有效性和安全性。方法:在一项非临床研究中,耳鼻喉科医生使用医疗机器人人工采集拭子标本。在一项单机构、随机、开放标签、前瞻性、探索性临床试验中,通过人工和使用医疗机器人收集入组参与者的鼻咽拭子标本。结果:评估了医疗机器人采集鼻咽拭子的有效性和安全性。在机器人操作后,参与者的主观不适感以及鼻子的任何副作用或异常也被监测。初步的非临床数据显示,在RNA指标和细胞角蛋白-8表达方面,机器人和人工方法的结果相当。机器人最初对A549细胞的轻微损伤在随后的使用中得到了改善。在临床环境中,机器人辅助技术对人类RNase P的检出率为92.31%,而人工方法的检出率为100%。两种方法的参与者报告的拭子后不适相似,并在48小时内解决。结论:该医疗机器人系统能够高效、安全、准确地进行鼻咽拭子标本的非面对面采集。在呼吸道诊所、机场或港口安装这种设备,可以最大限度地降低个人与医护人员之间的感染风险,从而有助于有效分配医疗资源。
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
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
11.50%
发文量
82
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy is a peer-reviewed, scientific publication committed to expanding knowledge and publishing the best clinical and basic research within the fields of Rhinology & Allergy. Its focus is to publish information which contributes to improved quality of care for patients with nasal and sinus disorders. Its primary readership consists of otolaryngologists, allergists, and plastic surgeons. Published material includes peer-reviewed original research, clinical trials, and review articles.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信