Robot-assisted transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: initial evaluation of safety, feasibility, success and outcomes using the Magellan system

Robotics in Interventional Radiology: Review of Current and Future Applications

This review is a brief overview of the current status and the potential role of robotics in interventional radiology. Literature published in the last decades, with an emphasis on the last 5 years, was reviewed and the technical developments in robotics and navigational systems using CT-, MR- and US-image guidance were analyzed. Potential benefits and disadvantages of their current and future use were evaluated. The role of fusion imaging modalities and artificial intelligence was analyzed in both percutaneous and endovascular procedures. A few hundred articles describing results of single or several systems were included in our analysis.

Robotic-Assisted Versus Manual Prostatic Arterial Embolization for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Comparative Analysis

PURPOSE

Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) is a safe and efficacious procedure for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), though is technically challenging. We present our experience of technical and clinical outcomes of robotic and manual PAE in patients with BPH.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

IRB-approved retrospective study of 40 consecutive patients 49-81 years old with moderate or severe grade BPH from May 2014 to July 2015: 20 robotic-assisted PAE (group 1), 20 manual PAE (group 2). Robotic-assisted PAE was performed using the Magellan Robotic System. American Urological Association (AUA-SI) score, cost, technical and clinical success, radiation dose, fluoroscopy, and procedure time were reviewed. Statistical analysis was performed within and between each group using paired t test and one-way analysis of variance respectively, at 1 and 3 months.

RESULTS

No significant baseline differences in age and AUA-SI between groups. Technical success was 100% (group 1) and 95% (group 2). One unsuccessful subject from group 2 returned for a successful embolization using robotic assistance. Fluoroscopy and procedural times were similar between groups, with a non-significant lower patient radiation dose in group 1 (30,632.8 mGy/cm² vs 35,890.9, p = 0.269). Disposable cost was significantly different between groups with the robotic-assisted PAE incurring a higher cost (group 1 $4530.2; group 2 $1588.5, p < 0.0001). Clinical improvement was significant in both arms at 3 months: group 1 mean change in AUA-SI of 8.3 (p = 0.006), group 2: 9.6 (p < 0.0001). No minor or major complications occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic-assisted PAE offers technical success comparable to manual PAE, with similar clinical improvement with an increased cost.