PURPOSE: To evaluate the benefits of computed tomographic (CT) fluoroscopy-guided interventions and assess radiation exposures incurred with CT fluoroscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 6-month period of use of CT fluoroscopy to guide abdominal biopsy procedures and catheter drainage was analyzed. Efficacy measures and needle placement and procedure room times were compared with those of the preceding 6 months during which conventional CT was used. CT fluoroscopic times and estimated radiation exposures were compared for two CT fluoroscopic methods. RESULTS: The sensitivity and negative predictive values for biopsy procedures and the success rate for needle aspiration or catheter drainages for CT fluoroscopy--98%, 86%, and 100%, respectively--were not significantly different from those for conventional CT--95%, 80%, and 97%, respectively. Room time was not reduced significantly, but mean needle placement time for CT fluoroscopy (29 minutes; n = 95) was significantly lower than that for conventional CT (36 minutes; n = 93; P < .005). The mean patient dose index was 74 cGy. Limiting CT fluoroscopy to scanning the needle tip rather than scanning the entire needle pass significantly reduced the dose to the patient and the operator. CONCLUSION: Although CT fluoroscopy is a useful targeting technique, significant radiation exposures may result. Therefore, radiologists need to be aware of different methods of CT fluoroscopic guidance and the factors that contribute to radiation exposure.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the benefits of computed tomographic (CT) fluoroscopy-guided interventions and assess radiation exposures incurred with CT fluoroscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 6-month period of use of CT fluoroscopy to guide abdominal biopsy procedures and catheter drainage was analyzed. Efficacy measures and needle placement and procedure room times were compared with those of the preceding 6 months during which conventional CT was used. CT fluoroscopic times and estimated radiation exposures were compared for two CT fluoroscopic methods. RESULTS: The sensitivity and negative predictive values for biopsy procedures and the success rate for needle aspiration or catheter drainages for CT fluoroscopy--98%, 86%, and 100%, respectively--were not significantly different from those for conventional CT--95%, 80%, and 97%, respectively. Room time was not reduced significantly, but mean needle placement time for CT fluoroscopy (29 minutes; n = 95) was significantly lower than that for conventional CT (36 minutes; n = 93; P < .005). The mean patient dose index was 74 cGy. Limiting CT fluoroscopy to scanning the needle tip rather than scanning the entire needle pass significantly reduced the dose to the patient and the operator. CONCLUSION: Although CT fluoroscopy is a useful targeting technique, significant radiation exposures may result. Therefore, radiologists need to be aware of different methods of CT fluoroscopic guidance and the factors that contribute to radiation exposure.
Authors: Stephen B Solomon; Alexandru Patriciu; Mark E Bohlman; Louis R Kavoussi; Dan Stoianovici Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Tobias Penzkofer; Peter Isfort; Philipp Bruners; Christian Wiemann; Yiannis Kyriakou; Willi A Kalender; Rolf W Günther; Thomas Schmitz-Rode; Andreas H Mahnken Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-06-23 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Lifeng Yu; Xin Liu; Shuai Leng; James M Kofler; Juan C Ramirez-Giraldo; Mingliang Qu; Jodie Christner; Joel G Fletcher; Cynthia H McCollough Journal: Imaging Med Date: 2009-10
Authors: Frederik F Strobl; Sophia M Haeussler; Philipp M Paprottka; Ralf-Thorsten Hoffmann; Oliver Pieske; Maximilian F Reiser; Christoph G Trumm Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2014-05-10 Impact factor: 2.199