Robot-assisted versus manual percutaneous vascular interventions across vascular territories: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Xiaotian Wu, Shuaiwei Guo, Yi Zhang et al.
✦ AI-curated · Sources linked
In 30 seconds
This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated robot-assisted percutaneous vascular interventions (R-PVI) compared to manual interventions (M-PVI) across various vascular territories. Analyzing 40 studies with 3,870 R-PVI and 1,142 M-PVI patients, the study found similar clinical success rates (RR 1.00, P = 0.46) and major adverse cardiovascular/cerebrovascular events (MACE) rates (RR 0.72, P = 0.43), but R-PVI resulted in longer procedure times and reduced operator radiation exposure.
Key findings
- Clinical success rates were similar for R-PVI and M-PVI (RR 1.00, P = 0.46).
- R-PVI resulted in longer total procedure times (MD 15.92 min, P = 0.01).
- Operator radiation exposure was significantly reduced with R-PVI (MD -33.97 µSv, P < 0.001).
- MACE rates were comparable between R-PVI and M-PVI (RR 0.72, P = 0.43).
Why it matters
Understanding the comparative effectiveness and safety of R-PVI versus M-PVI is crucial for clinicians considering robotic assistance in vascular interventions. The findings highlight the potential for reduced radiation exposure for operators, which is an important safety consideration.