ArticleLa Radiologia medica2026
Robotic-assisted needle placement in CT-guided percutaneous ablation in the abdomen: the SaFE post-market study.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the feasibility, safety, and accuracy of robotic needle placement for abdominal percutaneous interventions in a real-world, post-market setting. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis prospective single-center study assessed a robotic guidance device for CT-guided needle placement during abdominal thermal ablation procedures. The primary endpoint was technical success, defined as successful robotic needle placement without technical failure (full manual insertion or two failed robotic attempts). Secondary endpoints included procedural safety, needle placement accuracy (3D deviation and manual adjustments categorized as minor [depth-only], moderate [lateral], and major [complete needle retrieval]), immediate ablation success, 2-month and 1-year local recurrence, and operator satisfaction (5-point Likert scale).
resultsBetween April 2022 and January 2023, 54 patients (one duplicate inclusion excluded) were analyzed (30 men, 24 women); mean age 64.7 (± 12.9). Most had metastatic disease (74.1%). Target organs included mainly the liver (68.5%) and the kidney (24.1%). Mean lesion diameter was 24.7 mm (± 13.1), with 59.0% considered technically challenging. Ablation modalities included microwave (63.3%), cryoablation (35.0%), and radiofrequency (1.7%). A total of 108 needles were placed (mean 1.8/patient), yielding a technical success rate of 94.4%. The mean final 3D accuracy after adjustments when required was 2.5 mm (± 3.7). Immediate ablation success was achieved in 98.4% lesions (60/61), with a mean minimal margin of 5.6 mm (± 3.2). Local recurrence occurred in 8.3% of cases at 2 months and in 25.6% at 1 year. Operator satisfaction averaged 3.1/4.
conclusionRobotic guidance for CT-guided abdominal thermal ablation is feasible, safe, and provides high needle placement accuracy. Early oncologic outcomes appear comparable to conventional freehand techniques, supporting the integration of robotic systems into routine interventional radiology practice.
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.