Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Advanced Tools and Devices: Navigation Technologies, Automation, and Robotics in Percutaneous Interventions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Percutaneous Image-Guided Biopsy

Abstract

Interventional radiologists often employ knowledge of complex spatial anatomy and anatomic landmarks to facilitate percutaneous biopsies. Novel navigation and tracking technologies, multimodality image fusion capabilities, and semiautomated robotic needle guidance provide IR physicians with advanced tools and devices that have the potential to improve lesion targeting and accuracy and, potentially, patient outcomes. This chapter provides an overview of navigation and tracking technologies and robotic capabilities that can facilitate percutaneous needle biopsy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Solomon S, Magee C, Acker D, Venbrux A. Experimental nonfluoroscopic placement of inferior vena cava filters: use of an electromagnetic navigation system with previous CT data. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1999;10:92–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Varro Z, Locklin J, Wood B. Laser navigation for radiofrequency ablation. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2004;27:512–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wood B, Locklin J, Viswanathan A, et al. Technologies for guidance of radiofrequency ablation in the multimodality interventional suite of the future. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2007;18:9–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Craig J. Introduction to robotics. 2nd ed. Reading: Addison-Wesley; 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cleary K, Melzer A, Watson V, Kronreif G, Stoianovici D. Interventional robotic systems: applications and technology state-of-the-art. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2006;15(2):101–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wood B, Venkatesan A, Abi-Jaoudeh N. Navigation tools and video games in IR and interventional oncology. Society for Interventional Radiology, 2010, Tampa, Florida; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  7. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Education brief: humans and robots. EB-2001-04-004-JSC. REI Systems Inc.; 2004. p. 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Wood BJ, Kruecker J, Abi-Jaoudeh N, Locklin JK, Levy E, Xu S, Solbiati L, Kapoor A, Amalou H, Venkatesan AM. Navigation systems for ablation. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2010;21(8 Suppl):S25–63.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Wood B, Zhang H, Durrani A, et al. Navigation with electromagnetic tracking for interventional radiology procedures: a feasibility study. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2005;16(4):493–505.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Venkatesan AM, Kadoury S, Abi-Jaoudeh N, et al. Real-time FDG PET guidance during biopsies and radiofrequency ablation using multimodality fusion with electromagnetic navigation. Radiology. 2011;260(3):848–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kruecker J, Xu S, Glossop N, et al. Electromagnetic tracking for thermal ablation and biopsy guidance: clinical evaluation of spatial accuracy. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2007;18(9):1141–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Santos R, Gupta A, Ebright M, et al. Electromagnetic navigation to aid radiofrequency ablation and biopsy of lung tumors. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;89:265–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kruecker J, Venkatesan A, Xu S, et al. Clinical utility of real-time fusion guidance for biopsy and ablation. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2011;22(4):515–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Orth R, Wallace M, Kuo MD. C-arm cone-beam CT: general principles and technical considerations for use in interventional radiology. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2008;19(6):814–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hirota S, Nakao N, Yamamoto S, et al. Cone-beam CT with flat-panel detector digital angiography system: early experience in abdominal interventional procedures. Cardiovascl Intervent Radiol. 2006;29:1034–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Abi-Jaoudeh N, Mielekamp P, Noordhoek N, et al. Cone-beam computed tomography fusion and navigation for real-time positron emission tomography-guided biopsies and ablations: a feasibility study. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2012;23:737–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Loffroy R, Lin M, Yenokyan G, et al. Intraprocedural C-arm dual-phase cone beam CT: can it be used to predict short-term response to TACE with drug-eluting beads in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma? Radiology. 2013;266(2):636–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Llovet JM, Real MI, Montana X, et al. Arterial embolisation or chemoembolisation versus symptomatic treatment in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2002;359(9319):1734–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cleary K, Davies B, Fichtinger G, Troccaz J, Lueth T, Watson V. Medical robotics workshop-MRWS. Comput Aided Surg. 2004;9(4):167–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kettenbach J, Kronreif G, Figl M, Furst M, Birkfellner W, Hanel R, et al. Robot-assisted biopsy using ultrasound guidance: initial results from in vitro tests. Eur Radiol. 2004;15:765–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sun D, Willingham C, Durrani A, King P, Cleary K, Wood B. A novel end-effector design for robotics in image guided needle procedures. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg. 2006;2(1):91–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Melzer A, Schurr M, Kunert W, Buess G, et al. Intelligent surgical instrument system ISIS. Concept and preliminary experimental application of components and prototypes. Endosc Surg Allied Technol. 1993;1:165–70.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Chellaturai A, Kanhirat S, Chokkappan K, et al. Technical note: CT-guided biopsy of lung masses using an automated guiding apparatus. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2009;19(3):206–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Stoianovici D, Song D, Petrisor D, et al. “MRI stealth” robot for prostate interventions. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2007;16:241–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Su L, Stoianovici D, Jarrett T, et al. Robotic percutaneous access to the kidney: comparison with standard manual access. J Endourol. 2002;16(7):471–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Chokkappan K, Swaminathan TS, Kulasekaran N, et al. Scrutinizing the efficacy of automated method over manual methods in CT guided biopsies. Electronic poster presentation, European Society of Radiology March 6–9, 2009, Vienna, Austria.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the NIH Intramural Research Program and the NIH Center for Interventional Oncology. NIH may have intellectual property in the area. The NIH and Philips Healthcare (Best, Netherlands) have a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA). The written opinions are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the NIH or the US government. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of Health and Human Services, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences and Center for Interventional Oncology, NIH Clinical Center, 10 Center Dr., Bldg. 10, Rm. 1C369, MSC 1182, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA

    Aradhana M. Venkatesan MD

  2. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Center for Interventional Oncology, Interventional Radiology, NIH Clinical Center, 10 Center Dr., Bldg. 10, Rm. 1C369, MSC 1182, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA

    Bradford J. Wood MD

Authors
  1. Aradhana M. Venkatesan MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bradford J. Wood MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aradhana M. Venkatesan MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. Vascular & Interventional Radiol., University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA

    Kamran Ahrar

  2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology Section of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA

    Sanjay Gupta

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Venkatesan, A.M., Wood, B.J. (2014). Advanced Tools and Devices: Navigation Technologies, Automation, and Robotics in Percutaneous Interventions. In: Ahrar, K., Gupta, S. (eds) Percutaneous Image-Guided Biopsy. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8217-8_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8217-8_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-8216-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-8217-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation