Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42701129›Full record

ReviewEuropean radiology2026

Robot-assisted CT-guided interventions: Where are we now and where are we going?

Marliza O'Dwyer, Hugo C Temperley, Niall J O'Sullivan, Kevin P Sheahan

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Marliza O'DwyerDepartment of Radiology, St James's Hospital Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. marlizaodwyer@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0523-5223
Hugo C TemperleyDepartment of Radiology, St James's Hospital Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Niall J O'SullivanDepartment of Radiology, St James's Hospital Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Kevin P SheahanDepartment of Radiology, St James's Hospital Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesComputed tomography (CT)-guided interventions are central to interventional radiology (IR) but remain highly operator-dependent. Robotic assistance has been proposed to improve needle accuracy, reproducibility and radiation safety. While robotics are well established in surgery, their role in CT-guided IR remains evolving. This review synthesises current evidence, maps robotic CT-guided interventions onto the IDEAL framework for procedural innovation, and evaluates where these systems provide measurable clinical value. MATERIALS AND

methodsA narrative review was conducted according to established recommendations for high-quality narrative reviews and informed by SANRA principles. PubMed, Scopus and clinical trial registries were searched for studies evaluating robotic CT-guided percutaneous interventions. Evidence from preclinical, feasibility and comparative clinical studies was synthesised qualitatively and interpreted using the IDEAL framework.

resultsPreclinical studies consistently demonstrate improved targeting accuracy and fewer needle adjustments compared with freehand techniques. Clinical studies and systematic reviews support feasibility and safety across biopsy and ablation applications, with current clinical evidence concentrated in the liver, lung, kidney, and musculoskeletal system, particularly for long, oblique, and out-of-plane trajectories. Operator radiation exposure is frequently reduced, while procedure time and patient dose effects are variable. Most published studies correspond to IDEAL stages 1-2b, with emerging Stage 3 randomised evaluation; long-term and registry data remain limited.

conclusionRobot-assisted CT-guided interventions represent precision-enabling technologies but are not yet standard of care. Current evidence supports selective use in technically complex procedures. Wider adoption will depend on robust comparative studies, economic evaluation and structured implementation frameworks. KEY POINTS: Question What evidence supports robot-assisted CT-guided interventions in IR, and in which procedures do robotic systems provide clinical benefit? Findings Current clinical evidence is concentrated in liver, lung, kidney, and musculoskeletal interventions, demonstrating improved targeting precision and reduced needle adjustments and operator radiation exposure. Clinical relevance Robot-assisted CT-guided interventions may improve procedural precision and reduce radiation exposure in complex interventions, but wider adoption depends on stronger comparative evidence demonstrating meaningful clinical benefit, workflow efficiency, and cost-effectiveness.

Indexed as

CT-guided interventionIDEAL frameworkImage-guided biopsyInterventional radiologyRobotics

Identifiers

PMID42701129

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.