Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Robotic-assisted bronchoscopy provides comparable diagnostic yield to CT-guided biopsy for peripheral pulmonary lesionsRobotic Bronchoscopy Shows Fewer Complications for Lung Lesion Biopsies

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Note that robotic-assisted bronchoscopy offers comparable diagnostic yield to CTTB with fewer severe pneumothorax events.

This meta-analysis evaluates the comparative efficacy of robotic-assisted bronchoscopy (RAB) versus computed tomography-guided transthoracic needle biopsy (CTTB) for the diagnosis of peripheral pulmonary lesions. The analysis synthesized data on diagnostic yield, procedure time, and the incidence of pneumothorax requiring a chest tube and/or admission.

The primary finding indicates that RAB provides a comparable diagnostic yield to CTTB (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.93-1.06). Regarding safety, pneumothorax requiring a chest tube and/or admission was less frequent with RAB (RR 0.25; 95% CI 0.14-0.46). However, procedure times were longer with RAB, specifically by 50 minutes when same-session staging endobronchial ultrasound was included in robotic time, and 8 minutes when it was not.

Several limitations affect the certainty of these findings. The included studies were retrospective, confined to a single health system, and not stratified by lesion size or accessibility. Consequently, the results are considered hypothesis-generating. There is low certainty regarding pleural complications and very low certainty for other outcomes, meaning clinical application should be approached with caution.

Researchers compared two ways to biopsy lung lesions: robotic-assisted bronchoscopy (RAB) and computed tomography-guided transthoracic needle biopsy (CTTB). The study looked at how well each method identified issues and the safety risks involved for adult patients.

The results showed that both methods had a similar success rate in identifying the type of lung tissue. However, patients who underwent the robotic procedure were less likely to experience a serious lung collapse that required a chest tube or a hospital stay. While the robotic procedure took longer to complete, it appeared to be a safer option regarding specific complications.

Because this analysis included some older data and was limited to one health system, the results are currently used to help form new ideas rather than change standard care immediately. The evidence for some safety findings is not yet certain. Patients should talk to their doctors to decide which biopsy method is best for their specific condition.

What this means for you:
Robotic-assisted bronchoscopy shows a lower risk of serious lung complications compared to needle biopsies.

Common questions

Is robotic bronchoscopy safer than needle biopsy?

The study found that patients undergoing robotic-assisted bronchoscopy (RAB) were less likely to experience a pneumothorax requiring a chest tube or admission compared to needle biopsies. While the results are currently considered to have low certainty, the data suggests fewer serious complications for the robotic method.

How accurate is the robotic procedure for diagnosing lung issues?

The study found that the diagnostic yield for both robotic-assisted bronchoscopy and needle biopsies was comparable. This means both methods were equally effective at identifying the nature of the lung lesions in the patients studied.

How long does the robotic procedure take?

The robotic-assisted bronchoscopy procedure was found to take longer than the needle biopsy. Depending on whether certain staging steps were included in the time, it took between 8 and 50 minutes longer than the alternative method.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedSep 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
Robotic-assisted bronchoscopy (RAB) and computed tomography-guided transthoracic biopsy (CTTB) are competing strategies for sampling peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPLs). Whether they differ in yield or safety is uncertain. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review restricted to direct comparisons. We searched MEDLINE, Europe PMC, Scopus, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 7 July 2026 for studies directly comparing RAB with CTTB in adults with PPLs. The primary outcome was strict 2024 American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians diagnostic yield. Risk of bias was assessed with ROBINS-I and certainty with GRADE. A cohort-genealogy step identified, per outcome, the largest set of cohorts sharing no patients; only that set was pooled, with Hartung-Knapp and Mantel-Haenszel sensitivity analyses. Five retrospective studies from one US health system were eligible. Four share patients; at most three cohorts are mutually independent. Across those three, diagnostic yield was comparable (risk ratio [RR] 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93-1.06; I²=24%; Hartung-Knapp 0.87-1.13), with an identical relative effect under strict and intermediate definitions although absolute yields fell from 88% to 74-84% under strict criteria. Pneumothorax requiring a chest tube and/or admission was about three-quarters less frequent with RAB across all three cohorts (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.14-0.46; I²=0%; Hartung-Knapp 0.07-0.96). Strict yield (RR 0.99) and any pneumothorax (RR 0.06) were reported by two cohorts each and neither survives the few-studies correction. RAB took about 50 min longer than CTTB where same-session staging endobronchial ultrasound was counted in the robotic time, but only about 8 min longer than CTTB where it was not. Only one cohort reported yield by lesion size category and none reported yield by bronchus sign or lung zone, so lesion-level subgroups could not be pooled. Certainty was low for pleural complications and very low elsewhere. Low-certainty evidence indicates that RAB is associated with fewer pleural complications, with no statistically detectable difference in diagnostic yield; equivalence was not formally established. Because all evidence is retrospective, confined to one health system, and almost never stratified by lesion size or accessibility, these findings are hypothesis-generating and require a multicenter randomized trial.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.