Comparison of a Robotic and Patient-Mounted Device for CT-Guided Needle Placement: A Phantom Study

Background: Robotic-based guidance systems are becoming increasingly capable of assisting in needle placement during interventional procedures. Despite these technical advances, less sophisticated low-cost guidance devices promise to enhance puncture accuracy compared with the traditional freehand technique. Purpose: To compare the in vitro accuracy and feasibility of two different aiming devices for computed-tomography (CT)-guided punctures. Methods: A total of 560 CT-guided punctures were performed by using either a robotic (Perfint Healthcare: Maxio) or a novel low-cost patient-mounted system (Medical Templates AG: Puncture Cube System [PCS]) for the placement of Kirschner wires in a plexiglass phantom with different slice thicknesses. Needle placement accuracy as well as procedural time were assessed. The Euclidean (ED) and normal distances (ND) were calculated at the entry and target point. Results: Using the robotic device, the ND at the target for 1.25 mm, 2.5 mm, 3.75 mm and 5 mm slice thickness were 1.28 mm (SD +/- 0.79), 1.25 mm (SD +/- 0.81), 1.35 mm (SD +/- 1.00) and 1.35 mm (SD +/- 1.03). Using the PCS, the ND at the target for 1 mm, 3 mm and 5 mm slices were 3.84 mm (SD +/- 1.75), 4.41 mm (SD +/- 2.31) and 4.41 mm (SD +/- 2.11), respectively. With all comparable slice thicknesses, the robotic device was significantly more accurate compared to the low-cost device (p < 0.001). Needle placement with the PCS resulted in lower intervention time (mean, 158.83 s [SD +/- 23.38] vs. 225.67 s [SD +/- 17.2]). Conclusion: Although the robotic device provided more accurate results, both guidance systems showed acceptable results and may be helpful for interventions in difficult anatomical regions and for those requiring complex multi-angle trajectories.

Automated summary

This study compared the accuracy and feasibility of a robotic device and a low-cost guidance device for CT-guided punctures. The results showed that the robotic device was more accurate than the low-cost device, but both devices showed acceptable results.