Comparison of a Robotic and Patient-Mounted Device for CT-Guided Needle Placement: A Phantom Study
Background: Robotic-based guidance systems are becoming increasingly capable of assisting in needle placement during interventional procedures. Despite these technical advances, less sophisticated low-cost guidance devices promise to enhance puncture accuracy compared with the traditional freehand t...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2022-06-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Clinical Medicine |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/11/13/3746 |
| _version_ | 1797443032948146176 |
|---|---|
| author | Yannick Scharll Alexander Mitteregger Gregor Laimer Christoph Schwabl Peter Schullian Reto Bale |
| author_facet | Yannick Scharll Alexander Mitteregger Gregor Laimer Christoph Schwabl Peter Schullian Reto Bale |
| author_sort | Yannick Scharll |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background: Robotic-based guidance systems are becoming increasingly capable of assisting in needle placement during interventional procedures. Despite these technical advances, less sophisticated low-cost guidance devices promise to enhance puncture accuracy compared with the traditional freehand technique. Purpose: To compare the in vitro accuracy and feasibility of two different aiming devices for computed-tomography (CT)-guided punctures. Methods: A total of 560 CT-guided punctures were performed by using either a robotic (Perfint Healthcare: Maxio) or a novel low-cost patient-mounted system (Medical Templates AG: Puncture Cube System [PCS]) for the placement of Kirschner wires in a plexiglass phantom with different slice thicknesses. Needle placement accuracy as well as procedural time were assessed. The Euclidean (ED) and normal distances (ND) were calculated at the entry and target point. Results: Using the robotic device, the ND at the target for 1.25 mm, 2.5 mm, 3.75 mm and 5 mm slice thickness were 1.28 mm (SD ± 0.79), 1.25 mm (SD ± 0.81), 1.35 mm (SD ± 1.00) and 1.35 mm (SD ± 1.03). Using the PCS, the ND at the target for 1 mm, 3 mm and 5 mm slices were 3.84 mm (SD ± 1.75), 4.41 mm (SD ± 2.31) and 4.41 mm (SD ± 2.11), respectively. With all comparable slice thicknesses, the robotic device was significantly more accurate compared to the low-cost device (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Needle placement with the PCS resulted in lower intervention time (mean, 158.83 s [SD ± 23.38] vs. 225.67 s [SD ± 17.2]). Conclusion: Although the robotic device provided more accurate results, both guidance systems showed acceptable results and may be helpful for interventions in difficult anatomical regions and for those requiring complex multi-angle trajectories. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-09T12:50:14Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-ab72c43523984b65b04748611d1ae43b |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2077-0383 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-09T12:50:14Z |
| publishDate | 2022-06-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Clinical Medicine |
| spelling | doaj.art-ab72c43523984b65b04748611d1ae43b2023-11-30T22:07:14ZengMDPI AGJournal of Clinical Medicine2077-03832022-06-011113374610.3390/jcm11133746Comparison of a Robotic and Patient-Mounted Device for CT-Guided Needle Placement: A Phantom StudyYannick Scharll0Alexander Mitteregger1Gregor Laimer2Christoph Schwabl3Peter Schullian4Reto Bale5Department of Radiology, Section of Interventional Oncology—Microinvasive Therapy (SIP), Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstr. 35, 6020 Innsbruck, AustriaDepartment of Radiology, Section of Interventional Oncology—Microinvasive Therapy (SIP), Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstr. 35, 6020 Innsbruck, AustriaDepartment of Radiology, Section of Interventional Oncology—Microinvasive Therapy (SIP), Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstr. 35, 6020 Innsbruck, AustriaDepartment of Radiology, Section of Interventional Oncology—Microinvasive Therapy (SIP), Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstr. 35, 6020 Innsbruck, AustriaDepartment of Radiology, Section of Interventional Oncology—Microinvasive Therapy (SIP), Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstr. 35, 6020 Innsbruck, AustriaDepartment of Radiology, Section of Interventional Oncology—Microinvasive Therapy (SIP), Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstr. 35, 6020 Innsbruck, AustriaBackground: Robotic-based guidance systems are becoming increasingly capable of assisting in needle placement during interventional procedures. Despite these technical advances, less sophisticated low-cost guidance devices promise to enhance puncture accuracy compared with the traditional freehand technique. Purpose: To compare the in vitro accuracy and feasibility of two different aiming devices for computed-tomography (CT)-guided punctures. Methods: A total of 560 CT-guided punctures were performed by using either a robotic (Perfint Healthcare: Maxio) or a novel low-cost patient-mounted system (Medical Templates AG: Puncture Cube System [PCS]) for the placement of Kirschner wires in a plexiglass phantom with different slice thicknesses. Needle placement accuracy as well as procedural time were assessed. The Euclidean (ED) and normal distances (ND) were calculated at the entry and target point. Results: Using the robotic device, the ND at the target for 1.25 mm, 2.5 mm, 3.75 mm and 5 mm slice thickness were 1.28 mm (SD ± 0.79), 1.25 mm (SD ± 0.81), 1.35 mm (SD ± 1.00) and 1.35 mm (SD ± 1.03). Using the PCS, the ND at the target for 1 mm, 3 mm and 5 mm slices were 3.84 mm (SD ± 1.75), 4.41 mm (SD ± 2.31) and 4.41 mm (SD ± 2.11), respectively. With all comparable slice thicknesses, the robotic device was significantly more accurate compared to the low-cost device (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Needle placement with the PCS resulted in lower intervention time (mean, 158.83 s [SD ± 23.38] vs. 225.67 s [SD ± 17.2]). Conclusion: Although the robotic device provided more accurate results, both guidance systems showed acceptable results and may be helpful for interventions in difficult anatomical regions and for those requiring complex multi-angle trajectories.https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/11/13/3746percutaneousroboticradiofrequency ablationphantom studyaccuracy evaluation |
| spellingShingle | Yannick Scharll Alexander Mitteregger Gregor Laimer Christoph Schwabl Peter Schullian Reto Bale Comparison of a Robotic and Patient-Mounted Device for CT-Guided Needle Placement: A Phantom Study Journal of Clinical Medicine percutaneous robotic radiofrequency ablation phantom study accuracy evaluation |
| title | Comparison of a Robotic and Patient-Mounted Device for CT-Guided Needle Placement: A Phantom Study |
| title_full | Comparison of a Robotic and Patient-Mounted Device for CT-Guided Needle Placement: A Phantom Study |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of a Robotic and Patient-Mounted Device for CT-Guided Needle Placement: A Phantom Study |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of a Robotic and Patient-Mounted Device for CT-Guided Needle Placement: A Phantom Study |
| title_short | Comparison of a Robotic and Patient-Mounted Device for CT-Guided Needle Placement: A Phantom Study |
| title_sort | comparison of a robotic and patient mounted device for ct guided needle placement a phantom study |
| topic | percutaneous robotic radiofrequency ablation phantom study accuracy evaluation |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/11/13/3746 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT yannickscharll comparisonofaroboticandpatientmounteddeviceforctguidedneedleplacementaphantomstudy AT alexandermitteregger comparisonofaroboticandpatientmounteddeviceforctguidedneedleplacementaphantomstudy AT gregorlaimer comparisonofaroboticandpatientmounteddeviceforctguidedneedleplacementaphantomstudy AT christophschwabl comparisonofaroboticandpatientmounteddeviceforctguidedneedleplacementaphantomstudy AT peterschullian comparisonofaroboticandpatientmounteddeviceforctguidedneedleplacementaphantomstudy AT retobale comparisonofaroboticandpatientmounteddeviceforctguidedneedleplacementaphantomstudy |