In plain language
In 120 single-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) patients at one center, robotic PCI did not increase patient radiation dose, fluoroscopy time or contrast use compared with manual PCI. Operator dose was not measured in this study.
At a glance
- Type of study
- Original research, Retrospective cohort study
- Who was studied
- Patients
- Size
- n = 120 patients
- Summary based on
- the abstract
What it found
Robotic PCI showed a trend toward shorter fluoroscopy time than manual PCI.
Key figures: 10.1 ± 4.7 min vs 12.3 ± 7.6 min; P=.05
Patient radiation dose trended lower with robotic PCI, not significantly.
Key figures: 1389 ± 599 mGy vs 1665 ± 1026 mGy; P=.07
Contrast volume was similar or slightly lower with robotic PCI.
Key figures: 121 ± 47 mL vs 137 ± 62 mL; P=.11
Few robotic cases needed conversion to manual PCI and all achieved residual stenosis under 30%.
Key figures: 2 of 40 converted
Robotic PCI was not associated with increased patient radiation or contrast exposure.
Limits to keep in mind
Small single-center non-randomized comparison of 40 robotic versus 80 consecutive manual PCIs; operator radiation exposure was not measured, and differences were trends of borderline significance.
Related research summaries
- Clinical Feasibility of Robotic-Assisted Endovascular Visceral Interventions (2026, Prospective cohort study)
- Feasibility and safety of robotic PCI in China: first in man experience in Asia (2019, Case report or series)
- Comparison of Two Endovascular Steerable Robotic Catheters for Percutaneous Robot-Assisted Fibroid Embolization (2017, Prospective cohort study)
- Remote Magnetic Catheter Navigation Versus Conventional Ablation In Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: Fluoroscopy Reduction (2016, Retrospective cohort study)
- Operator radiation burden and periprocedural outcomes in robotic-assisted versus manual percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis (2026, Meta-analysis)
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.