Download PDF
Semin intervent Radiol 2021; 38(05): 565-575
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1739164
Review Article

Image-Guided Robotics for Standardized and Automated Biopsy and Ablation

Anna S. Christou
1   Center for Interventional Oncology, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
,
Amel Amalou
1   Center for Interventional Oncology, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
,
HooWon Lee
1   Center for Interventional Oncology, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
,
Jocelyne Rivera
1   Center for Interventional Oncology, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
,
Rui Li
2   Tandon School of Engineering, New York University, Brooklyn, New York
,
Michael T. Kassin
1   Center for Interventional Oncology, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
,
Nicole Varble
1   Center for Interventional Oncology, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
7   Philips Research North America, Cambridge, Massachusetts
,
Zion Tsz Ho Tse
3   Department of Electrical Engineering, University of York, Heslington, York, United Kingdom
,
Sheng Xu
1   Center for Interventional Oncology, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
,
Bradford J. Wood
1   Center for Interventional Oncology, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
4   Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
5   National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
6   Interventional Radiology, Radiology and Imaging Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
› Author Affiliations Funding Sources This work was supported by the Center for Interventional Oncology and the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) by intramural NIH Grants Z01 1ZID BC011242 and CL040015. This research was also made possible through the NIH Medical Research Scholars Program, a public-private partnership supported jointly by the NIH and contributions to the Foundation for the NIH from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the American Association for Dental Research, the Colgate-Palmolive Company, and other private donors.
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Image-guided robotics for biopsy and ablation aims to minimize procedure times, reduce needle manipulations, radiation, and complications, and enable treatment of larger and more complex tumors, while facilitating standardization for more uniform and improved outcomes. Robotic navigation of needles enables standardized and uniform procedures which enhance reproducibility via real-time precision feedback, while avoiding radiation exposure to the operator. Robots can be integrated with computed tomography (CT), cone beam CT, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasound and through various techniques, including stereotaxy, table-mounted, floor-mounted, and patient-mounted robots. The history, challenges, solutions, and questions facing the field of interventional radiology (IR) and interventional oncology are reviewed, to enable responsible clinical adoption and value definition via ergonomics, workflows, business models, and outcome data. IR-integrated robotics is ready for broader adoption. The robots are coming!

Keywords

biopsy - ablation - robotics - stereotactic navigation - treatment planning - interventional radiology

Disclosures

The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Health and Human Services, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. government.


N.V. is an employee of Philips Research North America.


B.J.W. is principal investigator on the following CRADAs (Cooperative Research and Development Agreements) between NIH and related commercial partners Philips Image Guided Therapy (CRADA), Philips Research (CRADA), Philips (CRADA), Siemens (CRADA), Canon Medical (Licensing Agreement), NVIDIA (CRADA), Boston Scientific (CRADA), Celsion Corp (CRADA), as well as XACT Robotics (CRADA), and prior research agreement with Perfint Healthcare. B.J.W. is a coinventor on 50 issued patents where NIH is the assignee. B.J.W. receives royalties from the NIH-Philips patent licensing agreement on technologies related to navigation and fusion biopsy, among other topics.




Publication History

Article published online:
24 November 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Kassamali RH, Ladak B. The role of robotics in interventional radiology: current status. Quant Imaging Med Surg 2015; 5 (03) 340-343
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Tacher V, de Baere T. Robotic assistance in interventional radiology: dream or reality?. Eur Radiol 2020; 30 (02) 925-926
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Leal Ghezzi T, Campos Corleta O. 30 Years of robotic surgery. World J Surg 2016; 40 (10) 2550-2557
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Wood BJ, Yanof JH. CT-guided interventional oncology: bridging the gap between diagnosis and therapy. Kontraste (Hamburg) 2005; 49 (03) 28-32
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Makarov DV, Li H, Lepor H, Gross CP, Blustein J. Teaching hospitals and the disconnect between technology adoption and comparative effectiveness research: the case of the surgical robot. Med Care Res Rev 2017; 74 (03) 369-376
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Williams SB, Prado K, Hu JC. Economics of robotic surgery: does it make sense and for whom?. Urol Clin North Am 2014; 41 (04) 591-596
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Koethe Y, Xu S, Velusamy G, Wood BJ, Venkatesan AM. Accuracy and efficacy of percutaneous biopsy and ablation using robotic assistance under computed tomography guidance: a phantom study. Eur Radiol 2014; 24 (03) 723-730
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Beermann M, Lindeberg J, Engstrand J. et al. 1000 consecutive ablation sessions in the era of computer assisted image guidance - lessons learned. Eur J Radiol Open 2019; 6: 1-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Tinguely P, Frehner L, Lachenmayer A. et al. Stereotactic image-guided microwave ablation for malignant liver tumors - a multivariable accuracy and efficacy analysis. Front Oncol 2020; 10: 842
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Schaible J, Pregler B, Verloh N. et al. Improvement of the primary efficacy of microwave ablation of malignant liver tumors by using a robotic navigation system. Radiol Oncol 2020; 54 (03) 295-300
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Citone M, Fanelli F, Falcone G, Mondaini F, Cozzi D, Miele V. A closer look to the new frontier of artificial intelligence in the percutaneous treatment of primary lesions of the liver. Med Oncol 2020; 37 (06) 55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Heerink WJ, Ruiter SJS, Pennings JP. et al. Robotic versus freehand needle positioning in CT-guided ablation of liver tumors: a randomized controlled trial. Radiology 2019; 290 (03) 826-832
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Wood BJ, Locklin JK, Viswanathan A. et al. Technologies for guidance of radiofrequency ablation in the multimodality interventional suite of the future. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2007; 18 (1, Pt 1): 9-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Markezana A, Goldberg SN, Kumar G. et al. Incomplete thermal ablation of tumors promotes increased tumorigenesis. Int J Hyperthermia 2021; 38 (01) 263-272
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Stone MJ, Wood BJ. Emerging local ablation techniques. Semin Intervent Radiol 2006; 23 (01) 85-98
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Solomon SB, Patriciu A, Bohlman ME, Kavoussi LR, Stoianovici D. Robotically driven interventions: a method of using CT fluoroscopy without radiation exposure to the physician. Radiology 2002; 225 (01) 277-282
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Putzer D, Schullian P, Braunwarth E. et al. Integrating interventional oncology in the treatment of liver tumors. Eur Surg 2018; 50 (03) 117-124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Bale R, Schullian P, Eberle G. et al. Stereotactic radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma: a histopathological study in explanted livers. Hepatology 2019; 70 (03) 840-850
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Xu S, Kruecker J, Turkbey B. et al. Real-time MRI-TRUS fusion for guidance of targeted prostate biopsies. Comput Aided Surg 2008; 13 (05) 255-264
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Liao R, Zhang L, Sun Y, Miao S, Chefdhotel C. A review of recent advances in registration techniques applied to minimally invasive therapy. IEEE Trans Multimed 2013; 15 (05) 983-1000
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Hoffmann J, Westendorff C, Leitner C, Bartz D, Reinert S. Validation of 3D-laser surface registration for image-guided cranio-maxillofacial surgery. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2005; 33 (01) 13-18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Khan FR, Henderson JM. Deep brain stimulation surgical techniques. Handbook of Clinical Neurology Brain Stimulation. Elsevier; 2013. 116. 27-37
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Brown RA. A stereotactic head frame for use with CT body scanners. Invest Radiol 1979; 14 (04) 300-304
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Khadem R, Yeh CC, Sadeghi-Tehrani M. et al. Comparative tracking error analysis of five different optical tracking systems. Comput Aided Surg 2000; 5 (02) 98-107
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Sorriento A, Porfido MB, Mazzoleni S. et al. Optical and electromagnetic tracking systems for biomedical applications: a critical review on potentialities and limitations. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng 2019; 13: 212-232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Franz AM, Haidegger T, Birkfellner W, Cleary K, Peters TM, Maier-Hein L. Electromagnetic tracking in medicine – a review of technology, validation, and applications. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2014; 33 (08) 1702-1725
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Geist E, Shimada K. Position error reduction in a mechanical tracking linkage for arthroscopic hip surgery. Int J CARS 2011; 6 (05) 693-698
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kettenbach J, Kronreif G. Robotic systems for percutaneous needle-guided interventions. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 2015; 24 (01) 45-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Lachenmayer A, Tinguely P, Maurer MH. et al. Stereotactic image-guided microwave ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma using a computer-assisted navigation system. Liver Int 2019; 39 (10) 1975-1985
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Schaible J, Lürken L, Wiggermann P. et al. Primary efficacy of percutaneous microwave ablation of malignant liver tumors: comparison of stereotactic and conventional manual guidance. Sci Rep 2020; 10 (01) 18835
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Guiu B, De Baère T, Noel G, Ronot M. Feasibility, safety and accuracy of a CT-guided robotic assistance for percutaneous needle placement in a swine liver model. Sci Rep 2021; 11 (01) 5218
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Hiraki T, Kamegawa T, Matsuno T. et al. Robotic needle insertion during computed tomography fluoroscopy-guided biopsy: prospective first-in-human feasibility trial. Eur Radiol 2020; 30 (02) 927-933
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Komaki T, Hiraki T, Kamegawa T. et al. Robotic CT-guided out-of-plane needle insertion: comparison of angle accuracy with manual insertion in phantom and measurement of distance accuracy in animals. Eur Radiol 2020; 30 (03) 1342-1349
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Levy S, Goldberg SN, Roth I. et al. Clinical evaluation of a robotic system for precise CT-guided percutaneous procedures. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2021; DOI: 10.1007/s00261-021-03175-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Pfeil A, Cazzato RL, Barbé L. et al. Robotically assisted CBCT-guided needle insertions: preliminary results in a phantom model. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2019; 42 (02) 283-288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Monfaredi R, Cleary K, Sharma K. MRI robots for needle-based interventions: systems and technology. Ann Biomed Eng 2018; 46 (10) 1479-1497
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Barral M, Lefevre A, Camparo P. et al. In-bore transrectal MRI-guided biopsy with robotic assistance in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: an analysis of 57 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2019; 213 (04) W171-W179
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Britz GW, Panesar SS, Falb P, Tomas J, Desai V, Lumsden A. Neuroendovascular-specific engineering modifications to the CorPath GRX Robotic System. J Neurosurg 2019; ; (epub ahead of print) DOI: 10.3171/2019.9.JNS192113.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Mahmud E, Schmid F, Kalmar P. et al. Feasibility and safety of robotic peripheral vascular interventions: results of the RAPID trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2016; 9 (19) 2058-2064
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 de Ruiter QMB, Karanian JW, Bakhutashvili I. et al. Endobronchial navigation guided by cone-beam CT-based augmented fluoroscopy without a bronchoscope: feasibility study in phantom and swine. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2020; 31 (12) 2122-2131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Jiang J, Chang SH, Kent AJ, Geraci TC, Cerfolio RJ. Current novel advances in bronchoscopy. Front Surg 2020; 7: 596925
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Kent AJ, Byrnes KA, Chang SH. State of the art: robotic bronchoscopy. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2020; 32 (04) 1030-1035
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Li R, Xu S, Pritchard WF. et al. AngleNav: MEMS tracker to facilitate CT-guided puncture. Ann Biomed Eng 2018; 46 (03) 452-463
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Park BJ, Hunt SJ, Martin III C, Nadolski GJ, Wood BJ, Gade TP. Augmented and mixed reality: technologies for enhancing the future of IR. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2020; 31 (07) 1074-1082
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Hecht R, Li M, de Ruiter QMB. et al. Smartphone augmented reality CT-based platform for needle insertion guidance: a phantom study. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2020; 43 (05) 756-764
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Long DJ, Li M, De Ruiter QMB. et al. Comparison of smartphone augmented reality, smartglasses augmented reality, and 3D CBCT-guided fluoroscopy navigation for percutaneous needle insertion: a phantom study. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2021; 44 (05) 774-781
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar