Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35807029›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022

Comparison of a Robotic and Patient-Mounted Device for CT-Guided Needle Placement: A Phantom Study.

Yannick Scharll, Alexander Mitteregger, Gregor Laimer, Christoph Schwabl, Peter Schullian, Reto Bale

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Evaluation of augmented reality training for a navigation device used for CT-guided needle placement.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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 · 2024
    Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

6 authors.

Yannick ScharllDepartment of Radiology, Section of Interventional Oncology-Microinvasive Therapy (SIP), Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstr. 35, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.
Alexander MittereggerDepartment of Radiology, Section of Interventional Oncology-Microinvasive Therapy (SIP), Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstr. 35, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-3255-377X
Gregor LaimerDepartment of Radiology, Section of Interventional Oncology-Microinvasive Therapy (SIP), Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstr. 35, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.
Christoph SchwablDepartment of Radiology, Section of Interventional Oncology-Microinvasive Therapy (SIP), Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstr. 35, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-4438-9025
Peter SchullianDepartment of Radiology, Section of Interventional Oncology-Microinvasive Therapy (SIP), Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstr. 35, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.
Reto BaleDepartment of Radiology, Section of Interventional Oncology-Microinvasive Therapy (SIP), Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstr. 35, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-0021-5792

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

accuracy evaluationpercutaneousphantom studyradiofrequency ablationrobotic

Identifiers

PMID35807029
PMCPMC9267795

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.