ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025
Safer fluoroscopy guided femoral access using a passive robotic support with a 3D printed needle and guidewire inserter.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Radiation during fluoroscopy guided puncture remains a daily concern for staff. We have designed 11 degree of freedom passive robotic mechanism (7 DOF passive robot and 4 DOF 3D printed needle and guide wire insertion) that keeps manual feel and line of sight while moving hands away from the beam. We tested its effectiveness on operator dose in a controlled swine model. Twelve femoral punctures were completed by one experienced operator. Six were done without the passive robot and six with it. Imaging used a mobile C arm.A diagnostic catheter was used to select both femoral arteries, and the standard Seldinger technique was followed. Real time personal dosimeters recorded per case dose at the fingers, wrist, eyes, left leg, right leg, left arm, and right arm. We also recorded exposure time, access success, and access site events. Navigating hand distance from the source was measured. Dose fell with the robot at every site. Reductions were largest at the fingers and wrist near 80%. Eyes fell by about 42%. The right arm and left leg fell by about 57 and 62%, respectively. The left arm and right leg fell by about 29%. Exposure time averaged 5.1 min without the passive robot and 6.5 min with it. Arterial access success was 100% in both cases. Two access-site complications occurred without the passive robot (one hematoma and one dissection), while one dissection occurred with it. The pattern matches the geometry change created by the passive robot which increases working distance and stabilizes the path while keeping tactile control. The device offers a practical path to safer fluoroscopy guided puncture. Future work will test performance in larger cohorts with multiple operators.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41109908What 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.