ArticleRadiology advances2025
Comparison of robotic versus manual needle insertion for CT-guided intervention: prospective randomized trial.
Article in Radiology advances, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robotic-assisted versus conventional CT-guided lung biopsy for pulmonary nodules: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- A novel robot for CT-guided bone needle insertion with a rotational drilling and force-feedback speed control mechanism: preliminary evaluation in swine.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Dose control in robot-assisted seed brachytherapy: challenges, current status, and future directions.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Robotic needle insertion under CT guidance has been developed, but data on comparison with manual insertion are still lacking. Purpose: To compare robotic versus manual needle insertion for CT fluoroscopy-guided intervention, primarily in terms of insertion accuracy. Materials and Methods: This was a prospective study between May 2020 and March 2023 at a single site. The cohort comprised 22 patients undergoing CT (Aquilion One or Aquilion CX; Canon Medical Systems) fluoroscopy-guided biopsy, who were randomly allocated to either the robotic or manual group. The robot used (Zerobot; Medicalnet Okayama) is not yet commercially available. A biopsy introducer needle was inserted by 1 of 3 physicians using a remote-control robot in the robotic group, versus by 1 of 3 different physicians by hand in the manual group. The primary endpoint was needle insertion accuracy, which was defined as the 3-dimensional Euclidean distance between a predetermined target point and the needle tip after insertion. The non-inferiority of robotic insertion to manual one was then tested. Adverse events were evaluated. Statistical comparisons were made between the 2 groups. Results: Technical success and pathological findings were confirmed in all patients of the 2 groups. The mean and SD of needle insertion were 4.8 mm ± 2.6 in the robotic group and 7.0 mm ± 3.1 in the manual group ( Conclusion: Robotic needle insertion was non-inferior to manual insertion in terms of accuracy, while it effectively eliminated radiation exposure to physicians. Trial registration number: jRCT2062200013.
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.