ArticleCHEST pulmonary2025
The Additional Accuracy Gained by Cone Beam CT in Shape-Sensing Robotic Bronchoscopy.
Article in CHEST pulmonary, 2025. 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.
- RoboticERJ open research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cone beam CT (CBCT) scan provides an intraprocedural 3-dimensional image of the biopsy tool in relation to the lesion, which may enhance the accuracy of robotic-assisted bronchoscopy (RAB) through real-time bronchoscopy adjustments. Our goal is to evaluate the ability to accurately position, in real time, a biopsy needle in the center of a pulmonary nodule using shape-sensing RAB alone vs shape-sensing RAB + CBCT guidance. Research Question: Does the addition of CBCT improve the accuracy of robotic bronchoscopy? Study Design and Methods: A total of 102 nodules were biopsied using shape-sensing RAB and the position of the needle in relation to the center of the nodule identified using a ceiling-mounted CBCT scanner. Repositioning of the RAB after 1 or 2 CBCT adjustments was accomplished using information gathered from the 3-dimensional images and using an updated augmented fluoroscopy target. The primary end point was needle location and distance change of the needle tip in reference to the lesion center using RAB alone vs RAB + CBCT scan. Secondary end points were improvement in radial endobronchial ultrasound image and average number of CBCT spins required to land at the center of the target. Results: Using RAB alone, the needle was placed in the center in 27 nodules (26.5%). The addition of CBCT scan to RAB greatly improved the distance of the needle toward the center of the lesion (mean ± SD, -4.08 ± 4.63 mm) in 46 nodules (61.3%) after 1 CBCT adjustment and (mean ± SD, -4.02 ± 4.21 mm) in an additional 17 nodules (58.6%) after a second CBCT adjustment ( Interpretation: The addition of CBCT scan to RAB was shown to improve the position of a biopsy tool in relation to the center of a pulmonary nodule. To our knowledge, this study is the first to quantify the accuracy achieved using both technologies, which may translate into reliability to perform diagnostic and potentially future therapeutic interventions in guided bronchoscopy.
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.