On the flexible needle insertion into the human liver

Flexible Needle Steering with Tethered and Untethered Actuation: Current States, Targeting Errors, Challenges and Opportunities

Accurate needle targeting is critical for many clinical procedures, such as transcutaneous biopsy or radiofrequency ablation of tumors. However, targeting errors may arise, limiting the widespread adoption of these procedures. Advances in flexible needle (FN) steering are emerging to mitigate these errors. This review summarizes the state-of-the-art developments of FNs and addresses possible targeting errors that can be overcome with steering actuation techniques. FN steering techniques can be classified as passive and active. Passive steering directly results from the needle-tissue interaction forces, whereas active steering requires additional forces to be applied at the needle tip, which enhances needle steerability. Therefore, the corresponding targeting errors of most passive FNs and active FNs are between 1 and 2 mm, and less than 1 mm, respectively. However, the diameters of active FNs range from 1.42 to 12 mm, which is larger than the passive steering needle varying from 0.5 to 1.4 mm. Therefore, the development of active FNs is an area of active research. These active FNs can be steered using tethered internal direct actuation or untethered external actuation. Examples of tethered internal direct actuation include tendon-driven, longitudinal segment transmission and concentric tube transmission. Tendon-driven FNs have various structures, and longitudinal segment transmission needles could be adapted to reduce tissue damage. Additionally, concentric tube needles have immediate advantages and clinical applications in natural orifice surgery. Magnetic actuation enables active FN steering with untethered external actuation and facilitates miniaturization. The challenges faced in the fabrication, sensing, and actuation methods of FN are analyzed. Finally, bio-inspired FNs may offer solutions to address the challenges faced in FN active steering mechanisms.

Assessing liver fibrosis distribution through liver elasticity estimates obtained using a biomechanical model of respiratory motion with magnetic resonance elastography

Objective. This study aimed to produce a three-dimensional liver elasticity map using the finite element method (FEM) and respiration-induced motion captured by T1-weighted magnetic resonance images (FEM-E-map) and to evaluate whether FEM-E-maps can be an imaging biomarker comparable to magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) for assessing the distribution and severity of liver fibrosis. Approach. We enrolled 14 patients who underwent MRI and MRE. T1-weighted MR images were acquired during shallow inspiration and expiration breath-holding, and the displacement vector field (DVF) between two images was calculated using deformable image registration. FEM-E-maps were constructed using FEM and DVF. First, three Poisson’s ratio settings (0.45, 0.49, and 0.499995) were validated and optimized to minimize the difference in liver elasticity between the FEM-E-map and MRE. Then, the whole and regional liver elasticity values estimated using FEM-E-maps were compared with those obtained from MRE using Pearson’s correlation coefficients. Spearman rank correlations and chi-square histograms were used to compare the voxel-level elasticity distribution. Main results. The optimal Poisson’s ratio was 0.49. Whole liver elasticity estimated using FEM-E-maps was strongly correlated with that measured using MRE (r = 0.96). For regional liver elasticity, the correlation was 0.84 for the right lobe and 0.82 for the left lobe. Spearman analysis revealed a moderate correlation for the voxel-level elasticity distribution between FEM-E-maps and MRE (0.61 ± 0.10). The small chi-square distances between the two histograms (0.11 ± 0.07) indicated good agreement. Significance. FEM-E-maps represent a potential imaging biomarker for visualizing the distribution of liver fibrosis using only T1-weighted images obtained with a common MR scanner, without any additional examination or special elastography equipment. However, additional studies including comparisons with biopsy findings are required to verify the reliability of this method for clinical application.