early experience of a commercial available robot (maxio) for ct-guided radiofrequency ablation of...
TRANSCRIPT
Early Experience of a Commercial Available Robot (Maxio) for CT-guided Radiofrequency Ablation of livertumours
1 BJJ Abdullah, 1 CH Yeong, 2 KL Goh, 3 BK Yoong, 4 GF Ho, 5 Anjali Kulkarni 1 Department of Biomedical Imaging and University of Malaya Research Imaging Centre, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.Departments of 2Internal Medicine, 3Surgery and 4Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.5Perfint Healthcare Corporation, Florence, OR 97439, United State.
Tumor visualization difficult in many cases
Impossible to visualize related structures
Skill dependent
Visualization
Limited ToolsCurrent fusion techniques -
Cumbersome
Ablation zone
Planning
Complex spatial orientation of organsNeedle visualization
Multiple needle Big Learning Curve
Positioning
No tool to validate
Patient follow up
Validation
Challenges in Ablation
Local tumor progression occurs due to failures in establishing ablative margin(Minami & Kudo, 2011)
Ablation tool lacks the critical level of control, accuracy, stability, and guaranteed performance (Emad M. Boctor et. Al, 2004)
3
Challenges of current CT-guided RFA
Repeated PuncturesRepeated Punctures
High CT fluoro doseHigh CT fluoro dose
Real timeReal time
Time ConsumingTime Consuming
ECR 2014, Vienna
Target
Entry point
Angle
Depth
4
MAXIOTM (Perfint Healthcare Pvt Ltd, Oregon, USA)
Foot Switch
CT Gantry Coordinate system
CT Console
Z
Y
X
Y
X
ROBIO EX Coordinate system
Integrated monitor(ROBIO EX-Console)
Ethernet connection either thro hospital Network or thro a Ethernet Hub to CT
RS485 thro USB/ Serial to 485 converter to ROBIO console
ECR 2014, Vienna
MAXIO
MAXIO console
Robotic-Assisted RFA
5
Purpose of Study
•To assess the accuracy of needle placement, radiation dose and performance level during robotic-assisted radiofrequency ablation (RA-RFA) of liver tumours using a CT-guidance robotic system (MAXIO, Perfint Healthcare, USA).
ECR 2014, Vienna
6
Methodology
• 19 patients (39 lesions, <5.0 cm diameter) were treated with RA-RFA.
• All the procedures were performed under GA. • Following baseline CT scans the lesions were identified.• The CT images (1 mm reconstructed SL) were registered to
the MAXIO workstation for treatment planning.• Target point (X, Y, Z) and needle entry point were determined
during the treatment plan.• The needle trajectory path, angulation and depth of lesion
were calculated and shown on the treatment plan.
ECR 2014, Vienna
7
Methodology
• The plan was carefully checked to avoid any critical organs or bone across the trajectory.
• Once the plan was confirmed, MAXIO was executed.• The robotic arm then moved automatically to the planned
location and the radiologist inserted the RFA needle through the bush holder at the end-effector of the robotic arm.
• Post-needle insertion, a CT-fluoro was done to confirm accurate placement of the needle within the target volume.
ECR 2014, Vienna
8
Methodology
• The accuracy of needle placement, number of readjustments and total radiation dose to each patient were recorded.
• The performance level was evaluated for each procedure on a five-point scale (5-1: Excellent-Poor) by the operated radiologist.
• The radiation doses and readjustments were then compared against 30 RFA patients treated without robotic assistance.
ECR 2014, Vienna
9
Image Registration Segmentation Simulation
Adaptive Intra-op. registration
Post procedure confirmation
Robotic Targeting
EXECUTE
SCAN
VALIDATE
PLAN VISUALISE
MaxioTM
ECR 2014, Vienna
10ECR 2014, Vienna
11ECR 2014, Vienna
12
Results
• All 39 lesions were targeted successfully.• No immediate complications were noted in all the patients.
ECR 2014, Vienna.
RA-RFA Conventional RFA P-valueAverage number of needle readjustment
0.8 ± 0.8
Performance level 4.7 ± 0.5 CT Fluoro Dose per Lesion (DLP, mGy.cm)
422.27 ± 370.611(-16%)
501.20 ± 366.54 P>0.05
Total CTDIvol per patient (mGy)
534.71 ± 397.74(-6%)
567.33 ± 398.62 P>0.05
Total DLP per patient (mGy.cm)
1390.37 ± 549.02(-14%)
1611.27 ± 708.38
P>0.05
13
Conclusion
•Robotic-assisted planning and needle placement appears to be ▫ technically easier▫ requires fewer number of needle passes▫ fewer check scans▫ lower radiation dose (patient & staff)
•Study with large sample size is needed to confirm these preliminary findings.
ECR 2014, Vienna
14
Other Potential Advantages of RA-RFA
• Time
• Pain
• Allows access to difficult lesions
• Accuracy & consistency
• Level of confidence & safety
ECR 2014, Vienna
15
References
•BJJ Abdullah, CH Yeong, KL Goh, BK Yoong, GF Ho, Carolyn Yim, Anjali Kulkarni. Robotic-assisted radiofrequency ablation of primary and secondary tumours. European Radiology, Vol 23(9), 2013.
•Perfint Healthcare Corporation official website. www.perfinthealthcare.com
ECR 2014, Vienna