Cargando…

Evaluation of a Robotic Assistance-System For Percutaneous Computed Tomography-Guided (CT-Guided) Facet Joint Injection: A Phantom Study

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare robotic assisted and freehand facet joint puncture on a phantom model in regards to time requirements and puncture accuracy. MATERIAL/METHODS: Forty facet joints were punctured, 20 using a robotic guidance system and 20 using a freehand procedure. Sid...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Beyer, Lukas Philipp, Michalik, Katharina, Niessen, Christoph, da Silva, Natascha Platz Batista, Wiesinger, Isabell, Stroszczynski, Christian, Wiggermann, Philipp
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: International Scientific Literature, Inc. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5042119/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27648509
http://dx.doi.org/10.12659/MSM.900686
_version_ 1782456551451131904
author Beyer, Lukas Philipp
Michalik, Katharina
Niessen, Christoph
da Silva, Natascha Platz Batista
Wiesinger, Isabell
Stroszczynski, Christian
Wiggermann, Philipp
author_facet Beyer, Lukas Philipp
Michalik, Katharina
Niessen, Christoph
da Silva, Natascha Platz Batista
Wiesinger, Isabell
Stroszczynski, Christian
Wiggermann, Philipp
author_sort Beyer, Lukas Philipp
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare robotic assisted and freehand facet joint puncture on a phantom model in regards to time requirements and puncture accuracy. MATERIAL/METHODS: Forty facet joints were punctured, 20 using a robotic guidance system and 20 using a freehand procedure. Side and height of the facet joints were randomized and identical for both groups. Procedural accuracy, defined as axial and sagittal deviation, as well as the number of corrections were assessed. Procedure times for each step were documented and time requirements for pre-positioning, reconstruction, planning, and total intervention were calculated. RESULTS: Total procedure time for robotic guidance was 259±111 seconds versus 119±77 seconds for freehand procedure (p=1.0). Procedural accuracy for robotic guidance was significantly higher with 0 corrections versus 1.3 corrections for freehand procedure (p=0.02). Needle deviation in the robotics arm was 0.35±1.1 mm in the axial and 2.15±1.2 mm in the sagittal reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic assisted puncture of the facet joint allowed accurate positioning of the needle with a lower number of needle readjustments. Higher procedural accuracy was marginally offset by a slightly longer intervention time.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5042119
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher International Scientific Literature, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50421192016-10-12 Evaluation of a Robotic Assistance-System For Percutaneous Computed Tomography-Guided (CT-Guided) Facet Joint Injection: A Phantom Study Beyer, Lukas Philipp Michalik, Katharina Niessen, Christoph da Silva, Natascha Platz Batista Wiesinger, Isabell Stroszczynski, Christian Wiggermann, Philipp Med Sci Monit Medical Technology BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare robotic assisted and freehand facet joint puncture on a phantom model in regards to time requirements and puncture accuracy. MATERIAL/METHODS: Forty facet joints were punctured, 20 using a robotic guidance system and 20 using a freehand procedure. Side and height of the facet joints were randomized and identical for both groups. Procedural accuracy, defined as axial and sagittal deviation, as well as the number of corrections were assessed. Procedure times for each step were documented and time requirements for pre-positioning, reconstruction, planning, and total intervention were calculated. RESULTS: Total procedure time for robotic guidance was 259±111 seconds versus 119±77 seconds for freehand procedure (p=1.0). Procedural accuracy for robotic guidance was significantly higher with 0 corrections versus 1.3 corrections for freehand procedure (p=0.02). Needle deviation in the robotics arm was 0.35±1.1 mm in the axial and 2.15±1.2 mm in the sagittal reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic assisted puncture of the facet joint allowed accurate positioning of the needle with a lower number of needle readjustments. Higher procedural accuracy was marginally offset by a slightly longer intervention time. International Scientific Literature, Inc. 2016-09-20 /pmc/articles/PMC5042119/ /pubmed/27648509 http://dx.doi.org/10.12659/MSM.900686 Text en © Med Sci Monit, 2016 This work is licensed under Creative Common Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
spellingShingle Medical Technology
Beyer, Lukas Philipp
Michalik, Katharina
Niessen, Christoph
da Silva, Natascha Platz Batista
Wiesinger, Isabell
Stroszczynski, Christian
Wiggermann, Philipp
Evaluation of a Robotic Assistance-System For Percutaneous Computed Tomography-Guided (CT-Guided) Facet Joint Injection: A Phantom Study
title Evaluation of a Robotic Assistance-System For Percutaneous Computed Tomography-Guided (CT-Guided) Facet Joint Injection: A Phantom Study
title_full Evaluation of a Robotic Assistance-System For Percutaneous Computed Tomography-Guided (CT-Guided) Facet Joint Injection: A Phantom Study
title_fullStr Evaluation of a Robotic Assistance-System For Percutaneous Computed Tomography-Guided (CT-Guided) Facet Joint Injection: A Phantom Study
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of a Robotic Assistance-System For Percutaneous Computed Tomography-Guided (CT-Guided) Facet Joint Injection: A Phantom Study
title_short Evaluation of a Robotic Assistance-System For Percutaneous Computed Tomography-Guided (CT-Guided) Facet Joint Injection: A Phantom Study
title_sort evaluation of a robotic assistance-system for percutaneous computed tomography-guided (ct-guided) facet joint injection: a phantom study
topic Medical Technology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5042119/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27648509
http://dx.doi.org/10.12659/MSM.900686
work_keys_str_mv AT beyerlukasphilipp evaluationofaroboticassistancesystemforpercutaneouscomputedtomographyguidedctguidedfacetjointinjectionaphantomstudy
AT michalikkatharina evaluationofaroboticassistancesystemforpercutaneouscomputedtomographyguidedctguidedfacetjointinjectionaphantomstudy
AT niessenchristoph evaluationofaroboticassistancesystemforpercutaneouscomputedtomographyguidedctguidedfacetjointinjectionaphantomstudy
AT dasilvanataschaplatzbatista evaluationofaroboticassistancesystemforpercutaneouscomputedtomographyguidedctguidedfacetjointinjectionaphantomstudy
AT wiesingerisabell evaluationofaroboticassistancesystemforpercutaneouscomputedtomographyguidedctguidedfacetjointinjectionaphantomstudy
AT stroszczynskichristian evaluationofaroboticassistancesystemforpercutaneouscomputedtomographyguidedctguidedfacetjointinjectionaphantomstudy
AT wiggermannphilipp evaluationofaroboticassistancesystemforpercutaneouscomputedtomographyguidedctguidedfacetjointinjectionaphantomstudy