Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36881085›Full record

ArticleIn vivo (Athens, Greece)

Learning Needle Placement in Soft Tissue With Robot-assisted Navigation.

Philipp Lautenschlaeger, Nils Rathmann, Andreas Rothfuss, Markus Kuhne, Simon Stork, Matthias Noll, Svetlana Hetjens, Stefan O Schoenberg, Jan Stallkamp, Steffen Diehl

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in In vivo (Athens, Greece). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

10 authors.

Philipp LautenschlaegerInstitute of Clinical Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.
Nils RathmannInstitute of Clinical Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany; nils.rathmann@umm.de.
Andreas RothfussBEC GmbH, Pfullingen, Germany.
Markus KuhneFraunhofer IPA, Fraunhofer Project Group for Automation in Medicine and Biotechnology, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.
Simon StorkBEC GmbH, Pfullingen, Germany.
Matthias NollFraunhofer Institute for Computer Graphics Research, Darmstadt, Germany.
Svetlana HetjensDepartment for Medical Statistics, Biomathematics and Information Processing, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.
Stefan O SchoenbergInstitute of Clinical Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.
Jan StallkampMannheim Institute for Intelligent Systems in Medicine MIISM, Department for Automation in Medicine and Biotechnology, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.
Steffen DiehlInstitute of Clinical Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimThe aim of this phantom study was to evaluate the learning curves of novices practicing how to place a cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-guided needle using a novel robotic assistance system (RAS). MATERIALS AND

methodsTen participants performed 18 punctures each with random trajectories in a phantom setting, supported by a RAS over 3 days. Precision, duration of the total intervention, duration of the needle placement, autonomy, and confidence of the participants were measured, displaying possible learning curves.

resultsNo statistically significant differences were observed in terms of needle tip deviation during the trial days (mean deviation day 1: 2.82 mm; day 3: 3.07 mm; p=0.7056). During the trial days, the duration of the total intervention (mean duration: day 1: 11:22 min; day 3: 07:39 min; p<0.0001) and the duration of the needle placement decreased (mean duration: day 1: 03:17 min; day 3: 02:11 min; p<0.0001). In addition, autonomy (mean percentage of achievable points: day 1: 94%; day 3: 99%; p<0.0001) and confidence of the participants (mean percentage of achievable points: day 1: 78%; day 3: 91%; p<0.0001) increased significantly during the trial days.

conclusionThe participants were already able to carry out the intervention precisely using the RAS on the first day of the trial. Throughout the trial, the participants' performance improved in terms of duration and confidence.

Indexed as

RoboticsCone-Beam Computed TomographyHumansPuncturescone-beam-CTCTCT-guided interventioninterventional radiologylearning curverobotics

Identifiers

PMID36881085
PMCPMC10026658

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.