Home /Research /Robotic versus Freehand Needle Positioning in CT-guided Ablation of Liver Tumors: A Randomized Controlled Trial
OTHER

Robotic versus Freehand Needle Positioning in CT-guided Ablation of Liver Tumors: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Wouter J. Heerink, Simeon J. S. Ruiter, Jan Pieter Pennings, Benno Lansdorp, Rozemarijn Vliegenthart, Matthijs Oudkerk, Koert P. de Jong

Year
2019
Citations
73

Abstract

Purpose To compare the accuracy of freehand versus robotic antenna placement in CT-guided microwave ablation (MWA) of liver tumors. Materials and Methods This study was conducted as a prospective single-center nonblinded randomized controlled trial (Netherlands Trial Registry, NTR6023). Eligible study participants had undergone clinically indicated CT-guided MWA of liver tumors and were able to receive a CT contrast agent. Randomization was performed per tumor after identification on contrast material-enhanced CT images. The primary outcome was the number of antenna repositionings, which was compared by using the Mann-Whitney U test. Secondary outcomes were lateral targeting error stratified by in-plane and out-of-plane targets and targeting time. Results Between February 14 and November 12, 2017, 31 participants with a mean age of 63 years (range, 25-88 years) were included: 17 women (mean age, 57 years; range, 25-77 years) and 14 men (mean age, 70 years; range, 52-88 years). The freehand study arm consisted of 19 participants, while the robotic study arm consisted of 18 participants; six participants with multiple tumors were included in both arms. Forty-seven tumors were assessed; five tumors were excluded from the analysis because of technical limitations. In the robotic arm, no antenna repositioning was required. In the freehand arm, a median of one repositioning was required (range, zero to seven repositionings; P < .001). For out-of-plane targets, lateral targeting error was 10.1 mm ± 4.0 and 5.9 mm ± 2.9 (P = .007) for freehand and robotic procedures, respectively, and for in-plane targets, lateral targeting error was 6.2 mm ± 2.7 and 7.7 mm ± 5.9, respectively (P = .51). Mean targeting time was 19 minutes (range, 8-55 minutes) and 36 minutes (range, 3-70 minutes; P = .001) for freehand and robotic procedures, respectively. Conclusion Robotic antenna guidance reduces the need for antenna repositioning in microwave ablation to accurately target liver tumors and increases accuracy for out-of-plane targets. However, targeting time was greater with robotic guidance than with freehand targeting. © RSNA, 2019.

Keywords

MedicineMicrowave ablationRandomized controlled trialRadiologyRandomizationNuclear medicineSurgeryPercutaneous

Related papers

Browse all OTHER papers