ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2025
Preliminary application of robot-assisted teleultrasound-guided interventional system.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTeleultrasound has gained significant traction in clinical practice in recent years. However, studies focusing on remote interventional ultrasound remain limited.
objectivesTo evaluate the feasibility and accuracy of percutaneous puncture using a robot-assisted teleultrasound-guided interventional system (RTIS). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study was approved by the institutional animal ethics committee and human research review board. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients. Two experienced interventional ultrasound physicians performed percutaneous punctures using both RTIS and conventional ultrasound guidance (CUG) in phantom and swine liver models, as well as in clinical settings. Puncture distance errors and operation durations were compared between the RTIS and CUG groups in the experimental models. For clinical applications, operation duration, success rates, and complications were recorded.
resultsNo significant differences were observed in puncture distance errors between the RTIS and CUG groups in the phantom study (2.85 ± 2.07 mm vs. 1.79 ± 1.93 mm; p = 0.158) or the swine liver study (3.28 ± 1.20 mm vs. 2.56 ± 0.98 mm; p = 0.148). However, puncture operation durations were significantly longer in the RTIS group compared to the CUG group across all scenarios: phantom study (50 ± 19 s vs. 19 ± 7 s; p < 0.001), swine liver study (106 ± 19 s vs. 61 ± 32 s; p = 0.001), and clinical application (200 ± 27.02 s vs. 104.8 ± 33.92 s; p < 0.001). All six patients in the RTIS group and ten patients in the CUG group successfully underwent percutaneous puncture without complications.
conclusionThe RTIS demonstrated safety and feasibility for percutaneous puncture, providing comparable accuracy to conventional methods. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The RTIS offers a safe and effective solution for percutaneous puncture, with the potential to address the scarcity of medical resources in remote and underserved regions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39690280What 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.