Impact of robotic assistance on the learning curve in endovascular interventions: exploring the role of operator experience with the CorPath GRX system.

IF 1.2 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Tatjana Dell, Marilia B Voigt, Alexander Isaak, Alexander Boehner, Claus Pieper, Narine Mesropyan, Patrick Kupczyk, Julian Luetkens, Daniel Kuetting
{"title":"Impact of robotic assistance on the learning curve in endovascular interventions: exploring the role of operator experience with the CorPath GRX system.","authors":"Tatjana Dell, Marilia B Voigt, Alexander Isaak, Alexander Boehner, Claus Pieper, Narine Mesropyan, Patrick Kupczyk, Julian Luetkens, Daniel Kuetting","doi":"10.1186/s42155-025-00529-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study investigates how endovascular interventionalists adapt to using a robotic platform, specifically the CorPath GRX Robotic System, and examines the influence of prior manual catheterization experience.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>An in-vitro trial was conducted to assess the adaptation to robot-assisted catheter-guided interventions in comparison to manual catheterization using a neurovascular phantom. Three interventional radiologists (beginner: no manual experience; intermediate: 3 years; expert: 10 years) with varying experience levels performed three corresponding robotic and manual guided superselective catherization tasks with three attempts per position with both approaches. Procedure time and total radiation dose was recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For the beginner reduced intervention times were noted using the robot-assisted approach (mean: 123 s) in comparison to manual catheterization (mean: 257 s; p = 0.008), whilst no differences were seen in between procedure durations for the intermediate (mean: 71 s for manual versus 102 s for robotic; p = 0.388) and expert interventionalist (mean: 30 s for manual versus 42 s for robotic; p = 0.479). The beginner also benefited significantly from robot-assisted procedures with lower emitted total radiation doses (mean: 0.007 Gy for manual versus 0.003 Gy for robotic; p = 0.007), while no significant differences are observed for intermediate (mean: 0.002 Gy for manual versus 0.003 Gy for robotic; p = 0.137) and expert practitioners (mean: 0.0008 Gy for manual versus 0.001 Gy for robotic; p = 0.459).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Robot-assisted platforms accelerate skill acquisition for beginners while maintaining efficiency for experienced practitioners. However, addressing costs and training requirements is essential for wider adoption and optimized outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":52351,"journal":{"name":"CVIR Endovascular","volume":"8 1","pages":"18"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11876475/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CVIR Endovascular","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s42155-025-00529-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study investigates how endovascular interventionalists adapt to using a robotic platform, specifically the CorPath GRX Robotic System, and examines the influence of prior manual catheterization experience.

Materials and methods: An in-vitro trial was conducted to assess the adaptation to robot-assisted catheter-guided interventions in comparison to manual catheterization using a neurovascular phantom. Three interventional radiologists (beginner: no manual experience; intermediate: 3 years; expert: 10 years) with varying experience levels performed three corresponding robotic and manual guided superselective catherization tasks with three attempts per position with both approaches. Procedure time and total radiation dose was recorded.

Results: For the beginner reduced intervention times were noted using the robot-assisted approach (mean: 123 s) in comparison to manual catheterization (mean: 257 s; p = 0.008), whilst no differences were seen in between procedure durations for the intermediate (mean: 71 s for manual versus 102 s for robotic; p = 0.388) and expert interventionalist (mean: 30 s for manual versus 42 s for robotic; p = 0.479). The beginner also benefited significantly from robot-assisted procedures with lower emitted total radiation doses (mean: 0.007 Gy for manual versus 0.003 Gy for robotic; p = 0.007), while no significant differences are observed for intermediate (mean: 0.002 Gy for manual versus 0.003 Gy for robotic; p = 0.137) and expert practitioners (mean: 0.0008 Gy for manual versus 0.001 Gy for robotic; p = 0.459).

Conclusion: Robot-assisted platforms accelerate skill acquisition for beginners while maintaining efficiency for experienced practitioners. However, addressing costs and training requirements is essential for wider adoption and optimized outcomes.

机器人辅助对血管内介入学习曲线的影响:探索操作员经验在CorPath GRX系统中的作用。
目的:本研究探讨血管内介入医师如何适应使用机器人平台,特别是CorPath GRX机器人系统,并检查先前人工导尿经验的影响。材料和方法:进行了一项体外试验,以评估机器人辅助导管引导干预的适应性,并与使用神经血管假体的人工导管置入进行比较。3名介入放射科医师(新手:无手动经验;中级:3年;专家:10年),具有不同的经验水平,执行了三个相应的机器人和人工引导的超选择性导尿任务,每个位置尝试三次,两种方法。记录手术时间和总辐射剂量。结果:与人工置管(平均257秒)相比,新手使用机器人辅助方法减少了干预时间(平均123秒);P = 0.008),而中间手术的持续时间没有差异(手动71秒,机器人102秒;P = 0.388)和专家介入医师(平均:手动30秒,机器人42秒;p = 0.479)。初学者也明显受益于机器人辅助手术,其发射总辐射剂量较低(手动平均为0.007 Gy,机器人为0.003 Gy;p = 0.007),而在中间状态下没有观察到显著差异(手动操作的平均值为0.002 Gy,机器人为0.003 Gy;p = 0.137)和专家从业者(平均:手动0.0008 Gy,机器人0.001 Gy;p = 0.459)。结论:机器人辅助平台加速了初学者的技能习得,同时保持了经验丰富的从业者的效率。然而,解决成本和培训需求对于更广泛的采用和优化结果至关重要。
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
CVIR Endovascular
CVIR Endovascular Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
59
×
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