Evidence Hub

Shape-Sensing Robotic-Assisted Bronchoscopic Microwave Ablation for Primary and Metastatic Pulmonary Nodules: Retrospective Case Series

Liqin Xu, Russell Miller, Mitchell Zhao, Grace Lin, Wenduo Gu, N. Patel, K. Van Nostrand, J. M. Munoz Pineda et al.

Diagnostics, 2025

4 citations

Abstract

Background: Bronchoscopic thermal ablation has emerged as a minimally invasive therapeutic option for managing pulmonary nodules in patients unsuitable for surgery or radiotherapy. Robotic-assisted bronchoscopy (RAB) offers enhanced stability and precise navigation, potentially improving the safety and accuracy of bronchoscopic ablation. However, clinical data on RAB-guided microwave ablation (MWA) remains limited. Therefore, further evidence is needed to evaluate its feasibility, safety, and early therapeutic performance. Methods: We conducted a single-center retrospective feasibility study of shape-sensing RAB-guided MWA (ssRAB-MWA) for pulmonary nodules between October 2024 and September 2025. Eligible lesions (≤3.0 cm) included both primary lung cancers and metastatic nodules. All procedures were performed under general anesthesia using the ssRAB system integrated with cone-beam CT for intra-procedural confirmation. Technical success, safety outcomes, and short-term efficacy were assessed. Results: Nine patients (with 11 lesions: 3 primary, 8 metastatic) underwent ssRAB-MWA with 100% technical success. The median ablation time per nodule was 10 min (range, 1–26). One patient developed post-ablation pneumonia requiring hospitalization; no pneumothorax, major bleeding, or airway injury occurred. All lesions exhibited a transient increase in size immediately following MWA, followed by gradual reduction or stabilization over time. PET-CT evaluation demonstrated metabolic…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free