# Shape-Sensing Robotic-Assisted Bronchoscopy vs. Electromagnetic Robotic-Assisted Bronchoscopy—A Comparative Cohort Study

## TL;DR

This study compares two robotic bronchoscopy systems for lung cancer diagnosis and finds similar effectiveness and safety.

## Contribution

Provides early comparative effectiveness data between two robotic bronchoscopy platforms in a clinical setting.

## Key findings

- Diagnostic yield was similar between the Ion and Monarch platforms (75% vs. 72%).
- Both systems had low complication rates, with one pneumothorax in each group.

## Abstract

Introduction: Lung cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related deaths globally, with approximately 1.5 million new peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPLs) detected annually in the United States. Robotic-assisted bronchoscopy (RAB) has emerged as a promising technology, with two platforms initially approved, the Monarch platform (Auris Health Inc, Redwood City, CA, USA) and the Ion Endoluminal System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA), offering improved stability and distal airway visualization. As RAB adoption increases, there is a critical need for comparative effectiveness data of these systems to guide clinical decision-making and institutional investments. This study aims to compare the diagnostic yield and safety profiles of the Ion and Monarch RAB platforms after introduction at a single institution. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients undergoing RAB in the first six months following the introduction of each platform. Demographic and radiographic data were collected. Diagnostic yield was defined as obtaining a malignant or specific benign diagnosis from bronchoscopy. Results: The study included 56 Ion and 36 Monarch procedures. Diagnostic yield was similar between Ion (75%) and Monarch (72%) groups (p = 0.8), with an adjusted odds ratio 0.89 (95% CI 0.30–2.72). Complications were low, with one pneumothorax occurring in each group. Conclusions: Early adoption and use of both RAB platforms suggests comparable diagnostic yields and safety profiles in our limited sample size. Larger studies including standardized anesthesia protocol and systematic use of real-time imaging are needed for further evaluation and comparative analysis.