In plain language
In 21 patients having robot-assisted fibroid embolization, a newer robotic catheter version gave higher technical success, shorter fluoroscopy time and lower patient dose-area product than the older version. Effects on operator dose are not reported in the abstract.
At a glance
- Type of study
- Original research, Prospective cohort study
- Who was studied
- Patients, Interventional radiologists
- Size
- n = 21 patients
- Summary based on
- the abstract
What it found
Successful robot-assisted fibroid embolization was more frequent with the newer catheter version.
Key figures: 57.1% (8/14) vs 100% (7/7), p = 0.01
Mean dose area product fell with the newer catheter.
Key figures: 18472.6 ± 15622 vs 5469.1 ± 4461.0 cGy·cm2 (p = 0.04)
Selective target vessel catheterization time was shorter with the newer catheter.
Key figures: 21.0 ± 12.8 vs 13.4 ± 7 min (p = 0.04)
Total fluoroscopy time was shorter with the newer catheter.
Key figures: 30.3 ± 11.2 vs 19.3 ± 5.9 min
All patients had symptom relief at 6 months.
Limits to keep in mind
Small single-centre, non-randomized comparison of 21 patients with unequal groups; physician dose results are not given in the abstract and there is no non-robotic control group.
Related research summaries
- Remote Magnetic Catheter Navigation Versus Conventional Ablation In Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: Fluoroscopy Reduction (2016, Retrospective cohort study)
- Radiation Exposure, Training, and Safety in Cardiology (2024, Narrative review)
- Practical guidance to reduce radiation exposure in electrophysiology applying ultra low-dose protocols: a European Heart Rhythm Association review (2023, Narrative review)
- Ionizing Radiation in Interventional Cardiology and Electrophysiology (2019, Narrative review)
- The impact of augmented reality on radiation exposure during spine surgery: a systematic review (2026, Systematic review)
How this summary was made
ORSIF prepared this summary with AI assistance from the abstract of the paper. A program then checked that the passage supporting each finding appears word for word in that source. A person has not yet reviewed each summary, so read the original before relying on a number. ORSIF summarizes research and does not endorse any product or company. Report a problem with this summary.
Prepared November 3, 2026.