These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of CT Fluoroscopy-Guided Manual and CT-Guided Robotic Positioning System for In Vivo Needle Placements in Swine Liver.
    Author: Cornelis F, Takaki H, Laskhmanan M, Durack JC, Erinjeri JP, Getrajdman GI, Maybody M, Sofocleous CT, Solomon SB, Srimathveeravalli G.
    Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol; 2015 Oct; 38(5):1252-60. PubMed ID: 25376924.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To compare CT fluoroscopy-guided manual and CT-guided robotic positioning system (RPS)-assisted needle placement by experienced IR physicians to targets in swine liver. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Manual and RPS-assisted needle placement was performed by six experienced IR physicians to four 5 mm fiducial seeds placed in swine liver (n = 6). Placement performance was assessed for placement accuracy, procedure time, number of confirmatory scans, needle manipulations, and procedure radiation dose. Intra-modality difference in performance for each physician was assessed using paired t test. Inter-physician performance variation for each modality was analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: Paired comparison of manual and RPS-assisted placements to a target by the same physician indicated accuracy outcomes was not statistically different (manual: 4.53 mm; RPS: 4.66 mm; p = 0.41), but manual placement resulted in higher total radiation dose (manual: 1075.77 mGy/cm; RPS: 636.4 mGy/cm; p = 0.03), required more confirmation scans (manual: 6.6; RPS: 1.6; p < 0.0001) and needle manipulations (manual: 4.6; RPS: 0.4; p < 0.0001). Procedure time for RPS was longer than manual placement (manual: 6.12 min; RPS: 9.7 min; p = 0.0003). Comparison of inter-physician performance during manual placement indicated significant differences in the time taken to complete placements (p = 0.008) and number of repositions (p = 0.04) but not in other study measures (p > 0.05). Comparison of inter-physician performance during RPS-assisted placement suggested statistically significant differences in procedure time (p = 0.02) and not in other study measures (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: CT-guided RPS-assisted needle placement reduced radiation dose, number of confirmatory scans, and needle manipulations when compared to manual needle placement by experienced IR physicians, with equivalent accuracy.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]