Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31773299›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2020

Robotic CT-guided out-of-plane needle insertion: comparison of angle accuracy with manual insertion in phantom and measurement of distance accuracy in animals.

Toshiyuki Komaki, Takao Hiraki, Tetsushi Kamegawa, Takayuki Matsuno, Jun Sakurai, Ryutaro Matsuura, Takuya Yamaguchi, Takanori Sasaki, Toshiharu Mitsuhashi, Soichiro Okamoto and 5 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Micro-robotic percutaneous targeting of type II endoleaks in the angio-suite.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. CRANE: A Redundant, Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Computed Tomography Robot for Heightened Needle Dexterity within a Medical Imaging Bore.IEEE transactions on robotics : a publication of the IEEE Robotics and Automation Society · 2024
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Toshiyuki KomakiDepartment of Radiology, Okayama University Medical School, 2-5-1 Shikatacho, Kitaku, Okayama, 700-8558, Japan.
Takao HirakiDepartment of Radiology, Okayama University Medical School, 2-5-1 Shikatacho, Kitaku, Okayama, 700-8558, Japan. hiraki-t@cc.okayama-u.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3992-4043
Tetsushi KamegawaGraduate School of Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering in Health Systems, Okayama University, 3-1-1 Tsushimanaka, Kitaku, Okayama, 700-8530, Japan.
Takayuki MatsunoGraduate School of Natural Science and Technology, Okayama University, 3-1-1 Tsushimanaka, Kitaku, Okayama, 700-8530, Japan.
Jun SakuraiCenter for Innovative Clinical Medicine, Okayama University Hospital, 2-5-1 Shikatacho, Kitaku, Okayama, 700-8558, Japan.
Ryutaro MatsuuraGraduate School of Health Sciences, Okayama University Medical School, 2-5-1 Shikatacho, Kitaku, Okayama, 700-8558, Japan.
Takuya YamaguchiDivision of Radiology, Department of Medical Technology, Okayama University Hospital, 2-5-1 Shikatacho, Kitaku, Okayama, 700-8558, Japan.
Takanori SasakiCollaborative Research Center for OMIC, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2-5-1 Shikatacho, Kitaku, Okayama, 700-8558, Japan.
Toshiharu MitsuhashiCenter for Innovative Clinical Medicine, Okayama University Hospital, 2-5-1 Shikatacho, Kitaku, Okayama, 700-8558, Japan.
Soichiro OkamotoDepartment of Radiology, Okayama University Medical School, 2-5-1 Shikatacho, Kitaku, Okayama, 700-8558, Japan.
Mayu UkaDepartment of Radiology, Okayama University Medical School, 2-5-1 Shikatacho, Kitaku, Okayama, 700-8558, Japan.
Yusuke MatsuiDepartment of Radiology, Okayama University Medical School, 2-5-1 Shikatacho, Kitaku, Okayama, 700-8558, Japan.
Toshihiro IguchiDepartment of Radiology, Okayama University Medical School, 2-5-1 Shikatacho, Kitaku, Okayama, 700-8558, Japan.
Hideo GobaraDivision of Medical Informatics, Okayama University Hospital, 2-5-1 Shikatacho, Kitaku, Okayama, 700-8558, Japan.
Susumu KanazawaDepartment of Radiology, Okayama University Medical School, 2-5-1 Shikatacho, Kitaku, Okayama, 700-8558, Japan.
Okayama University · JPOkayama University Hospital · JP

Funding

Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development 15hk0102014h001, 15hk0102014h002,15hk0102014h003Japan Society for the Promotion of Science 17K10439Japan Society for the Promotion of Science 25461882, 18K07677
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the accuracy of robotic CT-guided out-of-plane needle insertion in phantom and animal experiments.

methodsA robotic system (Zerobot), developed at our institution, was used for needle insertion. In the phantom experiment, 12 robotic needle insertions into a phantom at various angles in the XY and YZ planes were performed, and the same insertions were manually performed freehand, as well as guided by a smartphone application (SmartPuncture). Angle errors were compared between the robotic and smartphone-guided manual insertions using Student's t test. In the animal experiment, 6 robotic out-of-plane needle insertions toward targets of 1.0 mm in diameter placed in the kidneys and hip muscles of swine were performed, each with and without adjustment of needle orientation based on reconstructed CT images during insertion. Distance accuracy was calculated as the distance between the needle tip and the target center.

resultsIn the phantom experiment, the mean angle errors of the robotic, freehand manual, and smartphone-guided manual insertions were 0.4°, 7.0°, and 3.7° in the XY plane and 0.6°, 6.3°, and 0.6° in the YZ plane, respectively. Robotic insertions in the XY plane were significantly (p < 0.001) more accurate than smartphone-guided insertions. In the animal experiment, the overall mean distance accuracy of robotic insertions with and without adjustment of needle orientation was 2.5 mm and 5.0 mm, respectively.

conclusionRobotic CT-guided out-of-plane needle insertions were more accurate than smartphone-guided manual insertions in the phantom and were also accurate in the in vivo procedure, particularly with adjustment during insertion. KEY POINTS: • Out-of-plane needle insertions performed using our robot were more accurate than smartphone-guided manual insertions in the phantom experiment and were also accurate in the in vivo procedure. • In the phantom experiment, the mean angle errors of the robotic and smartphone-guided manual out-of-plane needle insertions were 0.4° and 3.7° in the XY plane (p < 0.001) and 0.6° and 0.6° in the YZ plane (p = 0.65), respectively. • In the animal experiment, the overall mean distance accuracies of the robotic out-of-plane needle insertions with and without adjustments of needle orientation during insertion were 2.5 mm and 5.0 mm, respectively.

Indexed as

NeedlesPhantoms, ImagingAnimalsImage-Guided BiopsyKidneyMuscle, SkeletalPuncturesRoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresSmartphoneSoftwareSurgery, Computer-AssistedSwineTomography, X-Ray ComputedAnimal experimentsInterventional radiologyRobotics

Identifiers

PMID31773299
PMCPMC7033049
OpenAlexW2990218382

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.