ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Comparison of a Robotic and Patient-Mounted Device for CT-Guided Needle Placement: A Phantom Study.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Robotic-assisted needle placement in CT-guided percutaneous ablation in the abdomen: the SaFE post-market study.La Radiologia medica · 2026Article
- Safer fluoroscopy guided femoral access using a passive robotic support with a 3D printed needle and guidewire inserter.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Stability of Thermoablation Antenna Using a Patient-Mounted Navigation System: Initial Clinical Experience.Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Evaluation of augmented reality training for a navigation device used for CT-guided needle placement.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2024Article
- Puncture Cube Patient-Mounted Navigation System versus Freehand Method for CT-Guided Needle Placement: Study on a Neoprene Covered Elliptical Cylinder Gelatin Phantom.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2024Article
- Robot-Assisted 2D Fluoroscopic Needle Placement-A Phantom Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Puncture Accuracy of Robot-Assisted CT-Based Punctures in Interventional Radiology: An Ex Vivo Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Robotic Assistance in Percutaneous Liver Ablation Therapies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2024Article
- Innovations in Image-Guided Procedures: Unraveling Robot-Assisted Non-Hepatic Percutaneous Ablation.Seminars in interventional radiology · 2024Review
- Developing and testing a robotic MRI/CT fusion biopsy technique using a purpose-built interventional phantom.European radiology experimental · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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 (p < 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.