A Review of Robotic Interventional Neuroradiology

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Moniz E

   . Arterial encephalography, its importance in the location of cerebral tumors. https://thejns.org/view/journals/j-neurosurg/21/2/article-p145.xml. Accessed August 1, 2020
2. 2.↵
   2. Kwoh YS,
   3. Hou J,
   4. Jonckheere EA, et al

   . A robot with improved absolute positioning accuracy for CT guided stereotactic brain surgery. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1988;35:153–60 doi:10.1109/10.1354 pmid:3280462

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. 3.↵
   2. Davies BL,
   3. Hibberd RD,
   4. Ng WS, et al

   . The development of a surgeon robot for prostatectomies. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 1991;205:35–38 doi:10.1243/PIME_PROC_1991_205_259_02 pmid:1670073

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   2. Sung GT,
   3. Gill IS

   . Robotic laparoscopic surgery: a comparison of the DA Vinci and Zeus systems. Urology 2001;58:893–98 doi:10.1016/S0090-4295(01)01423-6 pmid:11744453

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
5. 5.↵
   2. Negoro M,
   3. Tanimoto M,
   4. Arai F, et al

   . An intelligent catheter system robotic controlled catheter system. Interv Neuroradiol 2001;7:111–13 doi:10.1177/15910199010070S116 pmid:20663387

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   2. Beyar R,
   3. Wenderow T,
   4. Lindner D, et al

   . Concept, design and pre-clinical studies for remote control percutaneous coronary interventions. EuroIntervention 2005;1:340–45 pmid:19758927

   PubMed
7. 7.↵
   2. Weisz G,
   3. Metzger DC,
   4. Caputo RP, et al

   . Safety and feasibility of robotic percutaneous coronary intervention: PRECISE (Percutaneous Robotically-Enhanced Coronary Intervention) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;61:1596–1600 doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2012.12.045 pmid:23500318

   FREE Full Text
8. 8.↵
   2. Mahmud E,
   3. Naghi J,
   4. Ang L, et al

   . Demonstration of the safety and feasibility of robotically assisted percutaneous coronary intervention in complex coronary lesions: results of the CORA-PCI Study (Complex Robotically Assisted Percutaneous Coronary Intervention). JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2017;10:1320–27 doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2017.03.050 pmid:28683937

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
9. 9.↵
   2. Kim KP,
   3. Miller DL,
   4. Balter S, et al

   . Occupational radiation doses to operators performing cardiac catheterization procedures. Health Phys 2008;94:211–27 doi:10.1097/01.HP.0000290614.76386.35 pmid:18301095

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
10. 10.↵
    2. Roguin A,
    3. Goldstein J,
    4. Bar O

    . Brain tumours among interventional cardiologists: a cause for alarm: report of four new cases from two cities and a review of the literature. EuroIntervention 2012;7:1081–86 [Database] doi:10.4244/EIJV7I9A172 pmid:22207231

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    2. Roguin A,
    3. Goldstein J,
    4. Bar O, et al

    . Brain and neck tumors among physicians performing interventional procedures. Am J Cardiol 2013;111:1368–72 doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.12.060 pmid:23419190

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    2. Rajaraman P,
    3. Doody MM,
    4. Yu CL, et al

    . Cancer Risks in U.S.: radiologic technologists working with fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures, 1994-2008. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016;206:1101–08; quiz 1109 doi:10.2214/AJR.15.15265 pmid:26998721

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    2. El-Sayed T,
    3. Patel AS,
    4. Cho JS, et al

    . Radiation-induced DNA damage in operators performing endovascular aortic repair. Circulation 2017;136:2406–16 doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.029550 pmid:29054934

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
14. 14.↵
    2. Plourde G,
    3. Pancholy SB,
    4. Nolan J, et al

    . Radiation exposure in relation to the arterial access site used for diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2015;386:2192–2203 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00305-0 pmid:26411986

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    2. Smilowitz NR,
    3. Balter S,
    4. Weisz G

    . Occupational hazards of interventional cardiology. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2013;14:223–28 doi:10.1016/j.carrev.2013.05.002 pmid:23759715

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    2. Andreassi MG,
    3. Piccaluga E,
    4. Gargani L, et al

    . Subclinical carotid atherosclerosis and early vascular aging from long-term low-dose ionizing radiation exposure: a genetic, telomere, and vascular ultrasound study in cardiac catheterization laboratory staff. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2015;8:616–67 doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2014.12.233 pmid:25907089

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    2. Goldstein JA,
    3. Balter S,
    4. Cowley M, et al

    ; Interventional Committee of the Society of Cardiovascular Interventions. Occupational hazards of interventional cardiologists: prevalence of orthopedic health problems in contemporary practice. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2004;63:407–11 doi:10.1002/ccd.20201 pmid:15558765

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    2. Parra-Farinas C

    . How to fight the fear under the x-ray beam: interventional neuroradiology fellow mom to be. Stroke 2020;51:e121–23 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.029655 pmid:32482140

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    2. Vu CT,
    3. Elder DH

    . Pregnancy and the working interventional radiologist. Semin Intervent Radiology 2013;30:403–07 doi:10.1055/s-0033-1359735 pmid:24436568

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    2. Patel TM,
    3. Shah SC,
    4. Soni YY, et al

    . Comparison of robotic percutaneous coronary intervention with traditional percutaneous coronary intervention: a propensity score-matched analysis of a large cohort. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2020;13:e008888 doi:10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.119.008888 pmid:32406263

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    2. Tabaza L,
    3. Virk HU,
    4. Janzer S, et al

    . Robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention in a COVID-19 patient. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2020 May 20. [Epub ahead of print] doi:10.1002/ccd.28982 pmid:32433796

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    2. Britz GW,
    3. Tomas J,
    4. Lumsden A

    . Feasibility of robotic-assisted neurovascular interventions: initial experience in flow model and porcine model. Neurosurgery 2020;86:309–14 doi:10.1093/neuros/nyz064 pmid:30993336

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    2. Lu WS,
    3. Xu WY,
    4. Pan F, et al

    . Clinical application of a vascular interventional robot in cerebral angiography. Int J Med Robot 2016;12:132–36 doi:10.1002/rcs.1650 pmid:25782077

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    2. Guo J,
    3. Guo S,
    4. Xiao N, et al

    . A novel robotic catheter system with force and visual feedback for vascular interventional surgery. International Journal of Mechatronics and Automation 2012;2:15–24 doi:10.1504/IJMA.2012.046583

    CrossRef
25. 25.↵
    2. Wang K,
    3. Chen B,
    4. Lu Q, et al

    . Design and performance evaluation of real-time endovascular interventional surgical robotic system with high accuracy. Int J Med Robot 2018;14:e1915 doi:10.1002/rcs.1915 pmid:29761842

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    2. Arai F,
    3. Fujimura R,
    4. Fukuda T, et al

    . New catheter driving method using linear stepping mechanism for intravascular neurosurgery. In: Proceedings 2002 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat No 02CH37292), Washington, DC. May 11–15, 2002:2944–49
27. 27.↵
    2. Dabus G,
    3. Gerstle RJ,
    4. Cross DT, et al

    . Neuroendovascular magnetic navigation: clinical experience in ten patients. Neuroradiology 2007;49:351–55 doi:10.1007/s00234-006-0202-0 pmid:17216520

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    2. Jin QI,
    3. Pehrson S,
    4. Jacobsen PK, et al

    . Efficacy and safety of atrial fibrillation ablation using remote magnetic navigation: experience from 1,006 procedures. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2016;27:S23–28 doi:10.1111/jce.12929 pmid:26969219

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    2. Krings T,
    3. Finney J,
    4. Niggemann P, et al

    . Magnetic versus manual guidewire manipulation in neuroradiology: in vitro results. Neuroradiology 2006;48:394–401 doi:10.1007/s00234-006-0082-3 pmid:16622696

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    2. Harrison J,
    3. Ang L,
    4. Naghi J, et al

    . Robotically-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention: reasons for partial manual assistance or manual conversion. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2018;19:526–31 doi:10.1016/j.carrev.2017.11.003 pmid:29221959

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    CorPath® GRX Neuro Study. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT04236856. Accessed August 15, 2020
32. 32.↵
    2. Ryan Madder,
    3. William Lombardi,
    4. Manish Parikh, et al

    . TCT-539 impact of a novel advanced robotic wiring algorithm on time to wire a coronary artery bifuraction in a porcine model. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;70:B223 doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2017.09.712

    CrossRef
33. 33.↵
    2. Al Nooryani A,
    3. Aboushokka W

    . Rotate-on-retract procedural automation for robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention: first clinical experience. Case Rep Cardiol 2018;2018:6086034 doi:10.1155/2018/6086034 pmid:30671266

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    2. Meyers PM,
    3. Schumacher HC,
    4. Tanji K, et al

    . Use of stents to treat intracranial cerebrovascular disease. Annu Rev Med 2007;58:107–22 doi:10.1146/annurev.med.58.121205.100631 pmid:17217328

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
35. 35.↵
    2. Britz GW,
    3. Panesar SS,
    4. Falb P, et al

    . Neuroendovascular-specific engineering modifications to the CorPath GRX Robotic System. J Neurosurg 2019 Nov 29. [Epub ahead of print] doi:10.3171/2019.9.JNS192113 pmid:31783367

    CrossRefPubMed
36. 36.↵
    2. Mendes Pereira V,
    3. Cancelliere NM,
    4. Nicholson P, et al

    . First-in-human, robotic-assisted neuroendovascular intervention. J Neurointerv Surg 2020;12:338–40 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2019-015671.rep pmid:32132138

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
37. 37.↵
    2. Guo J,
    3. Jin X,
    4. Guo S

    . Study of the operational safety of a vascular interventional surgical robotic system. Micromachines (Basel) 2018;9:119 doi:10.3390/mi9030119 pmid:30424053

    CrossRefPubMed
38. 38.↵
    2. Saver JL,
    3. Goyal M,
    4. van der Lugt A, et al

    ; HERMES Collaborators. Time to treatment with endovascular thrombectomy and outcomes from ischemic stroke: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2016;316:1279–88 doi:10.1001/jama.2016.13647 pmid:27673305

    CrossRefPubMed
39. 39.↵
    2. Sarraj A,
    3. Savitz S,
    4. Pujara D, et al

    . Endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic strokes: current US access paradigms and optimization methodology. Stroke 2020;51:1207–17 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.028850 pmid:32078480

    CrossRefPubMed
40. 40.↵
    2. He AH,
    3. Churilov L,
    4. Mitchell PJ, et al

    . Every 15-min delay in recanalization by intra-arterial therapy in acute ischemic stroke increases risk of poor outcome. Int J Stroke 2015;10:1062–67 doi:10.1111/ijs.12495 pmid:25918863

    CrossRefPubMed
41. 41.↵
    2. Snyder T,
    3. Agarwal S,
    4. Huang J, et al

    . Stroke treatment delay limits outcome after mechanical thrombectomy: stratification by arrival time and ASPECTS. J Neuroimaging 2020;30:625–30 doi:10.1111/jon.12729 pmid:32592619

    CrossRefPubMed
42. 42.↵
    2. Muller-Barna P,
    3. Hubert GJ,
    4. Boy S, et al

    . TeleStroke units serving as a model of care in rural areas: 10-year experience of the TeleMedical Project for Integrative Stroke Care. Stroke 2014;45:2739–44 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.114.006141 pmid:25147327

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
43. 43.↵
    2. Audebert HJ,
    3. Schultes K,
    4. Tietz V, et al

    ; Telemedical Project for Integrative Stroke Care (TEMPiS). Long-term effects of specialized stroke care with telemedicine support in community hospitals on behalf of the Telemedical Project for Integrative Stroke Care (TEMPiS). Stroke 2009;40:902–08 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.529255 pmid:19023095

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
44. 44.↵
    2. El Nawar R,
    3. Lapergue B,
    4. Piotin M, et al

    ; ETIS Investigators. Higher annual operator volume is associated with better reperfusion rates in stroke patients treated by mechanical thrombectomy: the ETIS Registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2019;12:385–91 doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2018.12.007 pmid:30784645

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
45. 45.↵
    2. Bechstein M,
    3. Elsheikh S,
    4. Wodarg F, et al

    . Interhospital teleproctoring of endovascular intracranial aneurysm treatment using a dedicated live-streaming technology: first experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMJ Case Rep 2020;13:e016722 doi:10.1136/bcr-2020-016722 pmid:33012707

    CrossRefPubMed
46. 46.↵
    2. Lu WS,
    3. Wang DM,
    4. Liu D, et al

    . Regarding “Application of robotic telemanipulation system in vascular interventional surgery”. J Vasc Surg 2013;57:1452–53 doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2012.12.068 pmid:23601603

    CrossRefPubMed
47. 47.↵
    2. Madder RD,
    3. VanOosterhout SM,
    4. Jacoby ME, et al

    . Percutaneous coronary intervention using a combination of robotics and telecommunications by an operator in a separate physical location from the patient: an early exploration into the feasibility of telestenting (the REMOTE-PCI study). EuroIntervention 2017;12:1569–76 doi:10.4244/EIJ-D-16-00363 pmid:28105993

    CrossRefPubMed
48. 48.↵
    2. Patel TM,
    3. Shah SC,
    4. Pancholy SB

    . Long distance tele-robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention: a report of first-in-human experience. EClinicalMedicine 2019;14:53–58 doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.07.017 pmid:31709402

    CrossRefPubMed
49. 49.↵
    2. Rayman R,
    3. Croome K,
    4. Galbraith N, et al

    . Long-distance robotic telesurgery: a feasibility study for care in remote environments. Int J Med Robot 2006;2:216–24 doi:10.1002/rcs.99 pmid:17520635

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
50. 50.↵
    2. Xu S,
    3. Perez M,
    4. Yang K, et al

    . Determination of the latency effects on surgical performance and the acceptable latency levels in telesurgery using the dV-Trainer® simulator. Surg Endosc 2014;28:2569–76 doi:10.1007/s00464-014-3504-z pmid:24671353

    CrossRefPubMed
51. 51.↵
    2. Madder RD,
    3. VanOosterhout S,
    4. Mulder A, et al

    . Network latency and long-distance robotic telestenting: exploring the potential impact of network delays on telestenting performance. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2020;95:914–19 doi:10.1002/ccd.28425 pmid:31410958

    CrossRefPubMed
52. 52.↵
    2. Vuong SM,
    3. Carroll CP,
    4. Tackla RD, et al

    . Application of emerging technologies to improve access to ischemic stroke care. Neurosurg Focus 2017;42:E8 doi:10.3171/2017.1.FOCUS16520 pmid:28366070

    CrossRefPubMed
53. 53.↵
    2. Sajja KC,
    3. Sweid A,
    4. Al Saiegh F, et al

    . Endovascular robotic: feasibility and proof of principle for diagnostic cerebral angiography and carotid artery stenting. J Neurointerv Surg 2020;12:345–49 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2019-015763 pmid:32115436

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
54. 54.↵
    2. Weinberg JH,
    3. Sweid A,
    4. Sajja K, et al

    . Comparison of robotic-assisted carotid stenting and manual carotid stenting through the transradial approach. J Neurosurg 2020 Aug 28. [Epub ahead of print] doi:10.3171/2020.5.JNS201421 pmid:32858520

    CrossRefPubMed
55. 55.↵
    2. Nogueira RG,
    3. Sachdeva R,
    4. Al-Bayati AR, et al

    . Robotic assisted carotid artery stenting for the treatment of symptomatic carotid disease: technical feasibility and preliminary results. J Neurointerv Surg 2020;12:341–44 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2019-015754 pmid:32115435

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
56. 56.↵
    2. Kreiser K,
    3. Strober L,
    4. Gehling KG, et al

    . Simulation training in neuroangiography-validation and effectiveness. Clin Neuroradiol 2020 Apr 17. [Epub ahead of print] doi:10.1007/s00062-020-00902-5 pmid:32303789

    CrossRefPubMed
57. 57.↵
    2. Panesar SS,
    3. Ashkan K

    . Surgery in space. Br J Surg 2018;105:1234–43 doi:10.1002/bjs.10908 pmid:29923181

    CrossRefPubMed