Read the latest publications about the Cube Navigation System
NAVIGATION GUIDANCE FOR PERCUTANEOUS SPLANCHNIC NERVE RADIOFREQUENCY NEUROLYSIS: PRELIMINARY RESULTS
Grigoriadis, S.; Filippiadis, D.; Stamatopoulou, V.; Alexopoulou, E.; Kelekis, N.; Kelekis, A. Navigation
Guidance for Percutaneous Splanchnic Nerve Radiofrequency Neurolysis: Preliminary Results. Medicina 2022, 58, 1359.
Five clinical cases of splanchnic nerve radiofrequency neurolysis were performed using the Cube Navigation System (Puncture Cube). The study evaluated technical success, parameters of the neurolysis session, and complications.
All cases were sucessfully performed with a mean procedure time of 12.4 min (range 8-18 min). Four control scans on average were used to reach the final target. In one patient, the needle needed a slight adjustment after the first planning scan, likely due to a breathing artifact.
Mean pain score prior to neurolysis was 9.8 NVS units (range 9-10); at 3 months post-neurolysis, the mean pain score was 1.2 NVS units (range 0-3).
A reduction in variability of procedure time was also noted, although the sample size was too small to draw statistical conclusions.
The Puncture Cube was found to be simple to use, yet allowed for highly accurate needle placement and optimal calculation of double oblique access routes. The authors discussed several advantages over other navigation solutions.
THE ACCESS CUBE: EVALUATION OF A NOVEL, PATIENT-MOUNTED SYSTEM FOR CT-GUIDED PUNCTURES - A PHANTOM STUDY
Krammer, L., Kadrijaj, V., Hostettler, R., Wetzel, S. The Access Cube: Evaluation of a novel, patient-mounted system for CT-guided punctures: a phantom study. Oral presentation at CIRSE annual conference; September, 2022; Barcelona, Spain.
First evaluation of accuracy and efficiency of the Access Cube as compared to the standard of care Free Hand Method. Initial puncture accuracy, time requirements, and number of control scans were compared in this ex-vivo, phantom study.
Use of the Cube Navigation System with an Access Cube resulted in statistically significantly improved accuracy (3.8 mm ± 1.3 mm vs 6.7mm ± 4.5 mm with the free hand method) and overall lower intervention time (263.1 s ±84.4 s versus FHM 411.2 s 141.0 s). Furthermore, the number of CT scans was reduced to 1.4 versus FHM 2.8.
COMPARISON OF A ROBOTIC AND PATIENT-MOUNTED DEVICE FOR CT-GUIDED NEEDLE PLACEMENT: A PHANTOM STUDY
Scharll, Y., Mitteregger, A., Lamier, G. et al. Comparison of a Robotic and Patient-Mounted Device for CT-Guided Needle Placement: A Phantom Study. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 11, 3746 (2022). https:doi.org/10.3390.jcm11133746
Assessment of the Puncture Cube as compared to a robotic navigation device. In-vitro accuracy and time required were compared in this phantom study.
The Puncture Cube resulted in a mean nominal distance of between 3.84 and 4.41mm from the target, depending on the CT slice thickness. Although slightly less accurate than the robotic device, the Puncture Cube's performance was competitive with other navigational systems on the market. Beyond the accuracy assessment, the following key advantages are highlighted:
30% faster procedure time, not including set up or breakdown time
flexibility to use the system across multiple CT scanners at the same time
no floor space taken in the CT room
much faster return on ROI while providing accuracy gains sufficient for all but the long tail of complex procedures
EVALUATION OF A NOVEL, PATIENT-MOUNTED SYSTEM FOR CT-GUIDED NEEDLE NAVIGATION—AN EX VIVO STUDY
Mokry, A., Willmitzer, F., Hostettler, R. et al. Evaluation of a novel, patient-mounted system for CT-guided needle navigation—an ex vivo study. Neuroradiology 61, 55–61 (2019).
Assessment of the Puncture Cube as compared to the standard of care Free Hand Method. Accuracy and time requirements were compared in this ex-vivo, phantom study.
Compared to a conventional free-hand procedure, the use of the Cube Navigation System with a Puncture Cube resulted in a statistically significantly improved accuracy (3.4 mm ± 2.3 mm vs 4.9 mm ± 3.2 mm with the free hand method) and overall lower intervention time (168 s ± 28.5 s versus FHM 200 s ± 44.8 s). Furthermore, the number of CT scans was reduced to 2.3 versus FHM 2.8.