Comparison of robotic versus manual needle insertion for CT-guided intervention: prospective randomized trial.
Takao Hiraki, Yusuke Matsui, Jun Sakurai, Koji Tomita, Mayu Uka, Soichiro Kajita, Noriyuki Umakoshi, Toshihiro Iguchi, Michihiro Yoshida, Kota Sakamoto, Takayuki Matsuno, Tetsushi Kamegawa
Abstract
Open AccessBackground: Robotic needle insertion under CT guidance has been developed, but data on comparison with manual insertion are still lacking. Purpose: To compare robotic versus manual needle insertion for CT fluoroscopy-guided intervention, primarily in terms of insertion accuracy. Materials and Methods: This was a prospective study between May 2020 and March 2023 at a single site. The cohort comprised 22 patients undergoing CT (Aquilion One or Aquilion CX; Canon Medical Systems) fluoroscopy-guided biopsy, who were randomly allocated to either the robotic or manual group. The robot used (Zerobot; Medicalnet Okayama) is not yet commercially available. A biopsy introducer needle was inserted by 1 of 3 physicians using a remote-control robot in the robotic group, versus by 1 of 3 different physicians by hand in the manual group. The primary endpoint was needle insertion accuracy, which was defined as the 3-dimensional Euclidean distance between a predetermined target point and the needle tip after insertion. The non-inferiority of robotic insertion to manual one was then tested. Adverse events were evaluated. Statistical comparisons were made between the 2 groups. Results: Technical success and pathological findings were confirmed in all patients of the 2 groups. The mean and SD of needle insertion were 4.8 mm ± 2.6 in the robotic group and 7.0 mm ± 3.1 in the manual group (P < .001). The mean difference in accuracy between the 2 groups (robotic minus manual group) was -2.1 mm (95% CI, -4.7 to 0.4). Effective dose to physicians was zero in all cases in the robotic group, while median dose was 1.0 µSv in the manual group (P < .001). Dose length product to patients was not significantly different between the 2 groups (P = .100). No major adverse events were observed. Conclusion: Robotic needle insertion was non-inferior to manual insertion in terms of accuracy, while it effectively eliminated radiation exposure to physicians. Trial registration number: jRCT2062200013.