Robotic ultrasound-guided prostate intervention device: System description and results from phantom studies

International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 51-58

  Ho, H S S ^a   Mohan, P ^a   Lim, E D ^a   Yuen, J S P ^a   Ng, W S ^b   Lau, W K O ^a   Cheng, C W S ^a  

^a SINGAPORE GENERAL HOSPITAL   (Singapore)

^b NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY   (Singapore)

Author keywords

Accuracy; Biopsy; Experiments; Prostate; Robotic; Ultrasound

Indexed keywords

BIOPSY; NEEDLES; PHANTOMS; ROBOTICS; UROLOGY;

ACCURACY; ACCURACY AND REPEATABILITIES; BIOPSY NEEDLE; DEVICE SYSTEM; PHANTOM STUDIES; POSITIONING SYSTEM; PROSTATE; SYSTEM DESCRIPTION; ULTRASOUND PROBES; ULTRASOUND-GUIDED;

ULTRASONICS;

ARTICLE; COMPUTER MODEL; COMPUTER PROGRAM; COMPUTER SYSTEM; ECHOGRAPHY; IMAGE DISPLAY; PROSTATE; PROSTATE BIOPSY; ROBOTICS; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; CALIBRATION; COMPUTER ASSISTED SURGERY; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; INSTRUMENTATION; MALE; METHODOLOGY; NEEDLE BIOPSY; PATHOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY;

BIOPSY, NEEDLE; CALIBRATION; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MALE; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; PROSTATE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; ROBOTICS; SOFTWARE; SURGERY, COMPUTER-ASSISTED;

EID: 65349091346     PISSN: 14785951     EISSN: 1478596X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/rcs.232     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E et al. Cancer statistics, 2007. Ca Cancer J Clin 2007; 57: 43-66.
2. Sim HG, Cheng CWS. Changing demography of prostate cancer in Asia. Eur J Cancer 2004; 41: 834-845.
3. Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK et al. Random systematic versus ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 1989; 142: 71-75.
4. Shandera KC, Thibault GP, Deshon JE Jr. Variability in patients' preparation for prostate biopsy amongst American urologists. Urology 1998; 52: 644-646.
5. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Akingba G et al. The significance of prior benign needle biopsies in men subsequently diagnosed with prostate cancer. J Urol 1999; 162: 1640-1654.
6. Satoh T, Matsumoto K, Fujita T et al. Cancer core distribution in patients diagnosed by extended transperineal prostate biopsy. Urology 2005; 66: 114-118.
7. Heidenreich A, Aus G, Bolla M et al.; European Association of Urology. EAU guideline on prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 68-80.
8. Oehr P, Bouchelouche K. Imaging of prostate cancer. Curr Opin Oncol 2007; 19: 259-264.
9. Mohan P, Ho H, Yuen J et al. A 3D computer simulation to study the efficacy of transperineal versus transrectal biopsy of the prostate. Int J CARS 2007; 1: 351-360.
10. Emiliozzi P, Corsetti A, Tassi B et al. Best approach for prostate cancer detection: a prospective study on transperineal versus transrectal six-core prostate biopsy. Urology 2003; 61: 961-966.
11. Andriole GL, Bullock TL, Belani JS et al. Is there a better way to biopsy the prostate? Prospects for a novel transrectal systemic biopsy approach. Urology 2007; 70: 22-26.
12. Fichtinger G, DeWeese TL, Patriciu A et al. System for robotically assisted prostate biopsy and therapy with intraoperative CT guidance. Acad Radio 2002; 9: 60-74.
13. Muntener M, Patriciu A, Petrisor D et al. Magnetic resonance imaging - compatible robotic system for fully automated brachytherapy seed placement. Urology 2006; 68: 1313-1317.
14. Emiliozzi P, Longhi S, Scarpone P et al. The value of a single biopsy with 12 transperineal cores for detecting prostate cancer in patients with elevated prostate specific antigen. J Urol 2001; 166: 845-850.
15. Blumenfeld P, Hata N, Dimaio S et al. Transperineal prostate biopsy under magnetic resonance image guidance: a needle placement accuracy study. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007; 26: 688-694.
16. Mozer P, Leroy A, Payan Y et al. Computer-assisted access to the kidney. Int J Medical Robotics Comput Assist Surg 2005; 1: 58-66.
17. Daanen V, Gastaldo J, Giraud JY et al. MRI/TRUS data fusion for brachytherapy. Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg 2006; 2: 256-261.