The evaluation of peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPLs) is a persistent clinical challenge, made more pressing by the expansion of low-dose CT lung cancer screening. Conventional and earlier navigational bronchoscopy, including electromagnetic navigation, historically achieved diagnostic yields of approximately 60–70%, with CT-to-body divergence contributing to nondiagnostic sampling. This narrative review, prepared using the Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles (SANRA), summarizes robotic-assisted bronchoscopy (RAB) platform technology, procedural optimization, diagnostic performance, safety, molecular tissue adequacy, and emerging applications. A structured search was updated through September 2026; this is not a systematic review. Using the strict definition recommended by the American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians (ATS/ACCP), the most comprehensive meta-analysis reported a pooled RAB diagnostic yield of 69.6%, while the prospective multicenter TARGET study reported an adjudicated strict yield of 61.6%. Higher pooled estimates of approximately 84–87% generally use intermediate definitions that the ATS/ACCP statement recommends against as primary diagnostic-yield measures. RAB pneumothorax rates are approximately 2% in pooled analyses, compared with approximately 20–25% for CT-guided transthoracic needle biopsy. In the randomized RELIANT trial, RAB was non-inferior, but not superior, to electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy; in VERITAS, navigational bronchoscopy as a category was non-inferior to transthoracic needle biopsy for 12-month diagnostic accuracy, with fewer pneumothoraces. RAB is a useful option for selected PPLs, but strict-definition performance is more modest than frequently quoted intermediate yields. Outcomes depend on lesion characteristics, sampling strategy, operator experience, center volume, and imaging infrastructure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Venkatkiran Kanchustambham (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: