TY - JOUR
T1 - Robotically driven CT-guided needle insertion
T2 - Preliminary results in phantom and animal experiments
AU - Hiraki, Takao
AU - Kamegawa, Tetsushi
AU - Matsuno, Takayuki
AU - Sakurai, Jun
AU - Kirita, Yasuzo
AU - Matsuura, Ryutaro
AU - Yamaguchi, Takuya
AU - Sasaki, Takanori
AU - Mitsuhashi, Toshiharu
AU - Komaki, Toshiyuki
AU - Masaoka, Yoshihisa
AU - Matsui, Yusuke
AU - Fujiwara, Hiroyasu
AU - Iguchi, Toshihiro
AU - Gobara, Hideo
AU - Kanazawa, Susumu
N1 - Funding Information:
Supported by Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED) (15hk0102014h001, 15hk01020 14h002,15hk0102014h003); Promotion of Science and Technology, Okayama Prefecture; Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) (25461882); Organization for Research Promotion & Collaboration, Okayama University; Bayer research grant, Japanese Radiological Society.
Publisher Copyright:
© RSNA, 2017.
PY - 2017/11
Y1 - 2017/11
N2 - Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of the remote-controlled robotic computed tomography (CT)-guided needle insertion in phantom and animal experiments. Materials and Methods: In a phantom experiment, 18 robotic and manual insertions each were performed with 19-gauge needles by using CT fluoroscopic guidance for the evaluation of the equivalence of accuracy of insertion between the two groups with a 1.0-mm margin. Needle insertion time, CT fluoroscopy time, and radiation exposure were compared by using the Student t test. The animal experiments were approved by the institutional animal care and use committee. In the animal experiment, five robotic insertions each were attempted toward targets in the liver, kidneys, lungs, and hip muscle of three swine by using 19-gauge or 17-gauge needles and by using conventional CT guidance. The feasibility, safety, and accuracy of robotic insertion were evaluated. Results: The mean accuracies of robotic and manual insertion in phantoms were 1.6 and 1.4 mm, respectively. The 95% confidence interval of the mean difference was 20.3 to 0.6 mm. There were no significant differences in needle insertion time, CT fluoroscopy time, or radiation exposure to the phantom between the two methods. Effective dose to the physician during robotic insertion was always 0 μSv, while that during manual insertion was 5.7 μSv on average (P < .001). Robotic insertion was feasible in the animals, with an overall mean accuracy of 3.2 mm and three minor procedure-related complications. Conclusion: Robotic insertion exhibited equivalent accuracy as manual insertion in phantoms, without radiation exposure to the physician. It was also found to be accurate in an in vivo procedure in animals.
AB - Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of the remote-controlled robotic computed tomography (CT)-guided needle insertion in phantom and animal experiments. Materials and Methods: In a phantom experiment, 18 robotic and manual insertions each were performed with 19-gauge needles by using CT fluoroscopic guidance for the evaluation of the equivalence of accuracy of insertion between the two groups with a 1.0-mm margin. Needle insertion time, CT fluoroscopy time, and radiation exposure were compared by using the Student t test. The animal experiments were approved by the institutional animal care and use committee. In the animal experiment, five robotic insertions each were attempted toward targets in the liver, kidneys, lungs, and hip muscle of three swine by using 19-gauge or 17-gauge needles and by using conventional CT guidance. The feasibility, safety, and accuracy of robotic insertion were evaluated. Results: The mean accuracies of robotic and manual insertion in phantoms were 1.6 and 1.4 mm, respectively. The 95% confidence interval of the mean difference was 20.3 to 0.6 mm. There were no significant differences in needle insertion time, CT fluoroscopy time, or radiation exposure to the phantom between the two methods. Effective dose to the physician during robotic insertion was always 0 μSv, while that during manual insertion was 5.7 μSv on average (P < .001). Robotic insertion was feasible in the animals, with an overall mean accuracy of 3.2 mm and three minor procedure-related complications. Conclusion: Robotic insertion exhibited equivalent accuracy as manual insertion in phantoms, without radiation exposure to the physician. It was also found to be accurate in an in vivo procedure in animals.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85032188021&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85032188021&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1148/radiol.2017162856
DO - 10.1148/radiol.2017162856
M3 - Article
C2 - 28604237
AN - SCOPUS:85032188021
SN - 0033-8419
VL - 285
SP - 454
EP - 461
JO - Radiology
JF - Radiology
IS - 2
ER -