2018
Moreira, Pedro; Patel, Niravkumar; Wartenberg, Marek; Li, Gang; Tuncali, Kemal; Heffter, Tamas; Burdette, Everette C.; Iordachita, Iulian; Fischer, Gregory S.; Hata, Nobuhiko; Tempany, Clare M.; Tokuda, Junichi
Evaluation of robot-assisted MRI-guided prostate biopsy: needle path analysis during clinical trials Journal Article
In: PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, vol. 63, no. 20, pp. 20NT02, 2018, ISSN: 0031-9155, 1361-6560, (Num Pages: 9 Place: Bristol Publisher: IoP Publishing Ltd Web of Science ID: WOS:000448103100002).
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Accuracy, bore prostate biopsy, CANCER, guidance, needle deflection, needle path analysis, robot-assisted biopsy, SYSTEM
@article{moreira_evaluation_2018,
title = {Evaluation of robot-assisted MRI-guided prostate biopsy: needle path analysis during clinical trials},
author = {Pedro Moreira and Niravkumar Patel and Marek Wartenberg and Gang Li and Kemal Tuncali and Tamas Heffter and Everette C. Burdette and Iulian Iordachita and Gregory S. Fischer and Nobuhiko Hata and Clare M. Tempany and Junichi Tokuda},
doi = {10.1088/1361-6560/aae214},
issn = {0031-9155, 1361-6560},
year = {2018},
date = {2018-10-01},
journal = {PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY},
volume = {63},
number = {20},
pages = {20NT02},
abstract = {While the interaction between a needle and the surrounding tissue is known to cause a significant targeting error in prostate biopsy leading to false-negative results, few studies have demonstrated how it impacts in the actual procedure. We performed a pilot study on robot-assisted MRI-guided prostate biopsy with an emphasis on the in-depth analysis of the needle-tissue interaction in vivo. The data were acquired during in-bore transperineal prostate biopsies in patients using a 4 degrees-of-freedom (DoF) MRI-compatible robot. The anatomical structures in the pelvic area and the needle path were reconstructed from MR images, and quantitatively analyzed. We analyzed each structure individually and also proposed a mathematical model to investigate the influence of those structures in the targeting error using the mixed-model regression. The median targeting error in 188 insertions (27 patients) was 6.3 mm. Both the individual anatomical structure analysis and the mixed-model analysis showed that the deviation resulted from the contact between the needle and the skin as the main source of error. On contrary, needle bending inside the tissue (expressed as needle curvature) did not vary among insertions with targeting errors above and below the average. The analysis indicated that insertions crossing the bulbospongiosus presented a targeting error lower than the average. The mixed-model analysis demonstrated that the distance between the needle guide and the patient skin, the deviation at the entry point, and the path length inside the pelvic diaphragm had a statistically significant contribution to the targeting error (p < 0.05). Our results indicate that the errors associated with the elastic contact between the needle and the skin were more prominent than the needle bending along the insertion. Our findings will help to improve the preoperative planning of transperineal prostate biopsies.},
note = {Num Pages: 9
Place: Bristol
Publisher: IoP Publishing Ltd
Web of Science ID: WOS:000448103100002},
keywords = {Accuracy, bore prostate biopsy, CANCER, guidance, needle deflection, needle path analysis, robot-assisted biopsy, SYSTEM},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
While the interaction between a needle and the surrounding tissue is known to cause a significant targeting error in prostate biopsy leading to false-negative results, few studies have demonstrated how it impacts in the actual procedure. We performed a pilot study on robot-assisted MRI-guided prostate biopsy with an emphasis on the in-depth analysis of the needle-tissue interaction in vivo. The data were acquired during in-bore transperineal prostate biopsies in patients using a 4 degrees-of-freedom (DoF) MRI-compatible robot. The anatomical structures in the pelvic area and the needle path were reconstructed from MR images, and quantitatively analyzed. We analyzed each structure individually and also proposed a mathematical model to investigate the influence of those structures in the targeting error using the mixed-model regression. The median targeting error in 188 insertions (27 patients) was 6.3 mm. Both the individual anatomical structure analysis and the mixed-model analysis showed that the deviation resulted from the contact between the needle and the skin as the main source of error. On contrary, needle bending inside the tissue (expressed as needle curvature) did not vary among insertions with targeting errors above and below the average. The analysis indicated that insertions crossing the bulbospongiosus presented a targeting error lower than the average. The mixed-model analysis demonstrated that the distance between the needle guide and the patient skin, the deviation at the entry point, and the path length inside the pelvic diaphragm had a statistically significant contribution to the targeting error (p < 0.05). Our results indicate that the errors associated with the elastic contact between the needle and the skin were more prominent than the needle bending along the insertion. Our findings will help to improve the preoperative planning of transperineal prostate biopsies.