Factors Influencing Contact Force in Robotic Magnetic Navigation Ablation

• DOI: 10.1111/jce.16597
• Publication Date: 2025-02-17T13:00:34Z
• Authors: Michal Orczykowski; Maciej Bak; Krzysztof Kaczmarek; Piotr Urbanek; Bodalski Robert; Krzysztof Dubowski; Grzegorz Warminski; Pawel Derejko; Pawel Ptaszynski; Maciej Sterlinski; Maria Bilinska; Lukasz Szumowski
• Keywords: Stereotaxis; Contact force

ABSTRACT Introduction Stability of catheter‐tissue contact in the robotic magnetic navigation (RMN) system is one key features that distinguishes this from manually guided catheters. Numerous studies have shown force (CF) controlled catheters as crucial for forming an optimal lesion duration application or power. Catheters used RMN lack a quantitative method intraoperative monitoring parameter. Our study aims to partially address gap scientific knowledge. Methods We conducted total 1200 CF measurements using (Stereotaxis, St. Louis, MO, USA), magnetic‐guided 8 Fr RF ablation catheter (THERMOCOOL RMT Catheter, Biosense Webster, Irvine, CA, USA) inserted through long sheath (SR0, Abbott Cardiovascular, Nathan Lane North, Plymouth, MN, and precision jewelry scale (IKEME, Guangdong, CN). analyzed impact on obtained values four different field vectors (transverse, sagittal, caudal, cranial), two strengths (0.1T 0.08T), three extension configurations (with Position 1 being least extended 3 most extended). Results The varied significantly across vectors, strengths, extensions vascular sheath. greatest differences achieved were observed 1, ranging 3.52 ± 0.1 g (caudal plane) 15.15 0.05 (cranial at 0.08 Tesla (T) strength ( p < 0.001), 4.10 0.06 (caudal) 15.01 0.07 (cranial) T, 0.001. Differences other reached approximately 20%. highest intermediate 2, lowest 3. An exception was transverse vector, where, particularly with more similar Positions 1–3, respective 8.61 0.14 g, 9.36 8.31 g. A stronger (0.1 T compared T) resulted higher values, especially during vector. This effect pronounced ‐ 4.54 0.09 vs. 0.001). In cranial, caudal less noticeable. Conclusion Different sheath, result varying values. For effective radiofrequency lesions, these factors should be considered alongside power, duration, established parameters.