Takao Hiraki, Yusuke Matsui, Jun Sakurai, Koji Tomita, Mayu Uka, Soichiro Kajita, Noriyuki Umakoshi, Toshihiro Iguchi, Michihiro Yoshida, Kota Sakamoto, Takayuki Matsuno, Tetsushi Kamegawa
{"title":"Comparison of robotic versus manual needle insertion for CT-guided intervention: prospective randomized trial.","authors":"Takao Hiraki, Yusuke Matsui, Jun Sakurai, Koji Tomita, Mayu Uka, Soichiro Kajita, Noriyuki Umakoshi, Toshihiro Iguchi, Michihiro Yoshida, Kota Sakamoto, Takayuki Matsuno, Tetsushi Kamegawa","doi":"10.1093/radadv/umaf010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Robotic needle insertion under CT guidance has been developed, but data on comparison with manual insertion are still lacking.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare robotic versus manual needle insertion for CT fluoroscopy-guided intervention, primarily in terms of insertion accuracy.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This was a prospective study between May 2020 and March 2023 at a single site. The cohort comprised 22 patients undergoing CT (Aquilion One or Aquilion CX; Canon Medical Systems) fluoroscopy-guided biopsy, who were randomly allocated to either the robotic or manual group. The robot used (Zerobot; Medicalnet Okayama) is not yet commercially available. A biopsy introducer needle was inserted by 1 of 3 physicians using a remote-control robot in the robotic group, versus by 1 of 3 different physicians by hand in the manual group. The primary endpoint was needle insertion accuracy, which was defined as the 3-dimensional Euclidean distance between a predetermined target point and the needle tip after insertion. The non-inferiority of robotic insertion to manual one was then tested. Adverse events were evaluated. Statistical comparisons were made between the 2 groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Technical success and pathological findings were confirmed in all patients of the 2 groups. The mean and SD of needle insertion were 4.8 mm ± 2.6 in the robotic group and 7.0 mm ± 3.1 in the manual group (<i>P</i> < .001). The mean difference in accuracy between the 2 groups (robotic minus manual group) was -2.1 mm (95% CI, -4.7 to 0.4). Effective dose to physicians was zero in all cases in the robotic group, while median dose was 1.0 µSv in the manual group (<i>P</i> < .001). Dose length product to patients was not significantly different between the 2 groups (<i>P</i> = .100). No major adverse events were observed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Robotic needle insertion was non-inferior to manual insertion in terms of accuracy, while it effectively eliminated radiation exposure to physicians.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>jRCT2062200013.</p>","PeriodicalId":519940,"journal":{"name":"Radiology advances","volume":"2 2","pages":"umaf010"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12429234/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiology advances","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/radadv/umaf010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Robotic needle insertion under CT guidance has been developed, but data on comparison with manual insertion are still lacking.
Purpose: To compare robotic versus manual needle insertion for CT fluoroscopy-guided intervention, primarily in terms of insertion accuracy.
Materials and methods: This was a prospective study between May 2020 and March 2023 at a single site. The cohort comprised 22 patients undergoing CT (Aquilion One or Aquilion CX; Canon Medical Systems) fluoroscopy-guided biopsy, who were randomly allocated to either the robotic or manual group. The robot used (Zerobot; Medicalnet Okayama) is not yet commercially available. A biopsy introducer needle was inserted by 1 of 3 physicians using a remote-control robot in the robotic group, versus by 1 of 3 different physicians by hand in the manual group. The primary endpoint was needle insertion accuracy, which was defined as the 3-dimensional Euclidean distance between a predetermined target point and the needle tip after insertion. The non-inferiority of robotic insertion to manual one was then tested. Adverse events were evaluated. Statistical comparisons were made between the 2 groups.
Results: Technical success and pathological findings were confirmed in all patients of the 2 groups. The mean and SD of needle insertion were 4.8 mm ± 2.6 in the robotic group and 7.0 mm ± 3.1 in the manual group (P < .001). The mean difference in accuracy between the 2 groups (robotic minus manual group) was -2.1 mm (95% CI, -4.7 to 0.4). Effective dose to physicians was zero in all cases in the robotic group, while median dose was 1.0 µSv in the manual group (P < .001). Dose length product to patients was not significantly different between the 2 groups (P = .100). No major adverse events were observed.
Conclusion: Robotic needle insertion was non-inferior to manual insertion in terms of accuracy, while it effectively eliminated radiation exposure to physicians.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
