Robotic versus freehand CT-guided radiofrequency ablation of pulmonary metastases: a comparative cohort study

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a curative treatment option for small lung metastases, which conventionally involves multiple freehand manipulations until the treating electrode is satisfactorily positioned. Stereotactic and robotic guidance has been gaining popularity for liver ablation, although has not been established in lung ablation. The purpose of this study is to determine the feasibility, safety, and accuracy of robotic RFA for pulmonary metastases, and compare procedures with a conventional freehand cohort.

A single center study with prospective robotic cohort, and retrospective freehand cohort. RFA was performed under general anesthesia using high frequency jet ventilation and CT guidance. Main outcomes were (i) feasibility/technical success (ii) safety using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (iii) targeting accuracy (iv) number of needle manipulations for satisfactory ablation. Robotic and freehand cohorts were compared using Mann-Whitney U tests for continuous variables, and Fisher's exact for categorical variables.

Thirty-nine patients (mean age 65 ± 13 years, 20 men) underwent ablation of 44 pulmonary metastases at single specialist cancer center between July 2019 and August 2022. 20 consecutive participants underwent robotic ablation, and 20 consecutive patients underwent freehand ablation. All 20/20 (100%) robotic procedures were technically successful, and none were converted to freehand procedures. There were 6/20 (30%) adverse events in the robotic cohort, and 15/20 (75%) in the freehand cohort (P = 0.01). Robotic placement was highly accurate with 6 mm tip-to-target distance (range 0-14 mm) despite out-of-plane approaches, with fewer manipulations than freehand placement (median 0 vs. 4.5 manipulations, P < 0.001 and 7/22, 32% vs. 22/22, 100%, P < 0.001).

Robotic radiofrequency ablation of pulmonary metastases with general anesthesia and high frequency jet ventilation is feasible and safe. Targeting accuracy is high, and fewer needle/electrode manipulations are required to achieve a satisfactory position for ablation than freehand placement, with early indications of reduced complications.