ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2024
Characterizing the accuracy of robotic bronchoscopy in localization & targeting of small pulmonary lesions.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeConsidering the recent implementation of lung cancer screening guidelines, it is crucial that small pulmonary nodules are accurately diagnosed. There is a significant need for quick, precise, and minimally invasive biopsy methods, especially for patients with small lung lesions in the outer periphery. Robotic bronchoscopy (RB) has recently emerged as a novel solution. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of RB compared to the existing standard, electromagnetic navigational bronchoscopy (EM-NB).
methodsA prospective, single-blinded, and randomized-controlled study was performed to compare the accuracy of RB to EM-NB in localizing and targeting pulmonary lesions in a porcine lung model. Four operators were tasked with navigating to four pulmonary targets in the outer periphery of a porcine lung, to which they were blinded, using both the RB and EM-NB systems. The dependent variable was accuracy. Accuracy was measured as a rate of success in lesion localization and targeting, the distance from the center of the pulmonary target, and by anatomic location. The independent variable was the navigation system, RB was compared to EM-NB using 1:1 randomization.
resultsOf 75 attempts, 72 were successful in lesion localization and 60 were successful in lesion targeting. The success rate for lesion localization was 100% with RB and 91% with EM- NB. The success rate for lesion targeting was 93% with RB and 80% for EM-NB. RB demonstrated superior accuracy in reaching the distance from the center of the lesion, at 0.62 mm compared to EM-NB at 1.28 mm (p = 0.001). Accuracy was improved using RB compared to EM- NB for lesions in the LLL (p = 0.025), LUL (p < 0.001), and RUL (p < 0.001).
conclusionOur findings support RB as a more accurate method of navigating and localizing small peripheral pulmonary targets when compared to standard EM-NB in a porcine lung model. This may be attributed to the ability of RB to reduce substantial tissue displacement seen with standard EM-NB navigation. As the development and application of RB advances, so will the ability to accurately diagnose small peripheral lung cancer nodules, providing patients with early-stage lung cancer the best possible outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38890223What 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.