A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Clinical evaluation of a robotic system for precise CT-guided percutaneous procedures. | LitMetric

Purpose: To assess accuracy and compare protocols for CT-guided needle insertion for clinical biopsies using a hands-free robotic system, balancing system accuracy with duration of procedure and radiation dose.

Methods: Thirty-two percutaneous abdominal and pelvic biopsies were performed and analyzed at two centers (Center 1 n = 11; Center 2 n = 21) as part of an ongoing prospective, multi-center study. CT datasets were obtained for planning and controlled placement of 17 g needles using a patient-mounted, CT-guided robotic system. Planning included target selection, skin entry point, and predetermined checkpoints. Additional CT imaging was performed at checkpoints to confirm needle location and permit stepwise correction of the trajectory. Center 1 used a more conservative approach with multiple checkpoints, whereas Center 2 used fewer checkpoints. Scanning and needle advancement were performed under respiratory gating. Accuracy, radiation dose, and steering duration were compared.

Results: Overall accuracy was 1.6 ± 1.5 mm (1.9 ± 1.2 mm Center 1; 1.5 ± 1.6 mm Center 2; p = 0.55). Mean distance to target was 86.2 ± 27.1 mm (p = 0.18 between centers). Center 1 used 4.6 ± 0.8 checkpoints, whereas Center 2 used 1.8 ± 0.6 checkpoints (p < 0.001). Effective radiation doses were lower for Center 1 than for Center 2 (22.2 ± 12.6 mSv vs. 11.7 ± 4.3 mSv; p = 0.002). Likewise, steering duration (from planning to target) was significantly reduced in relation to the number of checkpoints from 43.8 ± 15.9 min for Center 1 to 30.5 ± 10.2 min for Center 2 (p = 0.008).

Conclusions: Accurate needle targeting with < 2 mm error can be achieved in patients when using a CT-guided robotic system. Judicious selection of the number of checkpoints may substantially reduce procedure time and radiation dose without sacrificing accuracy.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-021-03175-9DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

robotic system
12
center
8
centers center
8
checkpoints center
8
checkpoints
6
clinical evaluation
4
evaluation robotic
4
system
4
system precise
4
precise ct-guided
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!