Thumbnail
Access Restriction
Open

Author Cornelis, F. ♦ Takaki, H. ♦ Laskhmanan, M. ♦ Durack, J. C. ♦ Erinjeri, J. P. ♦ Getrajdman, G. I. ♦ Maybody, M. ♦ Sofocleous, C. T. ♦ Solomon, S. B. ♦ Srimathveeravalli, G.
Source United States Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information
Content type Text
Language English
Subject Keyword RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE ♦ ACCURACY ♦ COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS ♦ COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY ♦ FLUOROSCOPY ♦ IN VIVO ♦ LIVER ♦ MANUALS ♦ PERFORMANCE ♦ POSITIONING ♦ RADIATION DOSES ♦ SWINE
Abstract PurposeTo compare CT fluoroscopy-guided manual and CT-guided robotic positioning system (RPS)-assisted needle placement by experienced IR physicians to targets in swine liver.Materials and MethodsManual and RPS-assisted needle placement was performed by six experienced IR physicians to four 5 mm fiducial seeds placed in swine liver (n = 6). Placement performance was assessed for placement accuracy, procedure time, number of confirmatory scans, needle manipulations, and procedure radiation dose. Intra-modality difference in performance for each physician was assessed using paired t test. Inter-physician performance variation for each modality was analyzed using Kruskal–Wallis test.ResultsPaired comparison of manual and RPS-assisted placements to a target by the same physician indicated accuracy outcomes was not statistically different (manual: 4.53 mm; RPS: 4.66 mm; p = 0.41), but manual placement resulted in higher total radiation dose (manual: 1075.77 mGy/cm; RPS: 636.4 mGy/cm; p = 0.03), required more confirmation scans (manual: 6.6; RPS: 1.6; p < 0.0001) and needle manipulations (manual: 4.6; RPS: 0.4; p < 0.0001). Procedure time for RPS was longer than manual placement (manual: 6.12 min; RPS: 9.7 min; p = 0.0003). Comparison of inter-physician performance during manual placement indicated significant differences in the time taken to complete placements (p = 0.008) and number of repositions (p = 0.04) but not in other study measures (p > 0.05). Comparison of inter-physician performance during RPS-assisted placement suggested statistically significant differences in procedure time (p = 0.02) and not in other study measures (p > 0.05).ConclusionsCT-guided RPS-assisted needle placement reduced radiation dose, number of confirmatory scans, and needle manipulations when compared to manual needle placement by experienced IR physicians, with equivalent accuracy.
ISSN 01741551
Educational Use Research
Learning Resource Type Article
Publisher Date 2015-10-15
Publisher Place United States
Journal Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology
Volume Number 38
Issue Number 5


Open content in new tab

   Open content in new tab