ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Robot-Assisted 2D Fluoroscopic Needle Placement-A Phantom Study.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Vision-based augmented reality guidance for setting up robot-assisted spine surgery.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2026Article
- Safer fluoroscopy guided femoral access using a passive robotic support with a 3D printed needle and guidewire inserter.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Robotic-Assisted Vascular Surgery: Current Landscape, Challenges, and Future Directions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
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
RATIONALE AND
objectivesTo evaluate the targeting accuracy of a novel robot-assisted guidance technique relying on one pair of 2D C-arm images. MATERIAL AND
methodsIn total, 160 punctures were carried out semi-automatically by using a novel robotic device. The needle's paths were planned based on one pair of 2D fluoroscopic images from different angles. Conically shaped aluminum tips inside a gelatin-filled plexiglass phantom served as targets. The accuracy of the needle placement was assessed by taking control CTs and measuring the Euclidean distance (ED) and normal distance (ND) between the needle and the target point. In addition, the procedural time per needle placement was evaluated.
resultsThe accomplished mean NDs at the target for the 45°, 60°, 75° and 90° angles were 1.86 mm (SD ± 0.19), 2.68 mm (SD ± 0.18), 2.19 mm (SD ± 0.18) and 1.86 mm (SD ± 0.18), respectively. The corresponding mean EDs were 2.32 mm (SD ± 0.16), 2.68 mm (SD ± 0.18), 2.65 mm (SD ± 0.16) and 2.44 mm (SD ± 0.15). The mean duration of the total procedure, including image acquisition, trajectory planning and placement of four needles sequentially, was 12.7 min.
conclusionsRobotic guidance based on two 2D fluoroscopy images allows for the precise placement of needle-like instruments at the first attempt without the need for using an invasive dynamic reference frame. This novel approach seems to be a valuable tool for the precise targeting of various anatomical structures that can be identified in fluoroscopic images.
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.