Feasibility and Accuracy of a Novel Hands-Free Robotic System for Percutaneous Needle Insertion and Steering.

摘要

PURPOSE: To assess the performance and accuracy of CT-guided needle insertion for clinical biopsies using a novel, hands-free robotic system that balances accuracy with the duration of the procedure and radiation dose. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective, multi-center study was conducted on 60 clinically indicated biopsies of abdominal lesions at two centers (Center 1, n=26; Center 2, n=34). CT datasets were obtained for planning and controlled placement of 17g and 18g needles using a patient-mounted, CT-guided robotic system with 5 degrees of freedom. Planning included target selection, skin entry point, and predetermined checkpoints where additional imaging was performed to permit stepwise correction of the needle trajectory. Success rate, needle tip-to-target distance, number of checkpoints used, number of trajectory corrections, procedure duration, and effective radiation dose were recorded and compared between centers. RESULTS: In 55 of 60 procedures (91.7%), the robot positioned the trocar needle successfully on target. In the remaining 5 patients, the procedure was manually performed by the operator due to technical failure (n=3) or patient-related factors (n=2). The average lesion size was 2.8 ± 1.7cm with a lesion depth from the skin of 8.7 ± 2.6cm, and there was no difference between centers. The overall accuracy (needle tip-to-target distance) was 1.71 ± 1.49 (range 0.05-7.20mm), with an accuracy of 2.06 ± 1.45 mm at Center 1 and 1.45 ± 1.52 mm at Center 2 (p=0.1358). Center 1 used significantly more checkpoints (4.96 ± 1.08) and performed target adjustments in 20 of 24 (83%) cases compared to Center 2 (2.77 ± 0.6 checkpoints and target adjustments in 13 of 31 cases, 42%) (p=0.0024). Accordingly, the steering duration from skin entry to the target varied between Centers 1 and 2; 13.1min ± 4.25min vs. 5.7min ± 2.7min, respectively (p <0.001). The average DLP for the entire procedure was 1147 ± 820 mGycm, with a slightly lower average at Center 2 (1031 ± 724 mGycm) compared to Center 1 (1297 ± 925 mGycm) (p=0.236). CONCLUSION: Accurate needle-targeting within an error of 2mm can be achieved in patients using a CT-guided robotic system. The variation in the number of checkpoints did not affect system accuracy but was related to shorter steering times and may contribute to a lower radiation dose. Accurate needle insertion using a hands-free CT-guided robotic system may facilitate difficult needle placement and enhance the performance of less-experienced interventionalists.