PURPOSE: Evaluation of C-arm-supported CT fluoroscopy to facilitate percutaneous abscess drainage procedures. METHODS: Prospectively, 40 percutaneous drainage procedures were performed either with C-arm-supported CT fluoroscopy or with CT fluoroscopy alone. Hybrid imaging was performed on the CT couch after complementing a CT fluoroscopy scanner with a C-arm fluoroscopy unit. Procedure times, drainage revisions during follow-up, and postinterventional drainage periods were analyzed. RESULTS: When compared with exclusive CT fluoroscopic guidance, a median procedure time of 9 +/- 3.7 min versus 14.8 +/- 7.3 min was required for C-arm-supported CT fluoroscopy (p < 0.005, t-test). During follow-up, eight drainage catheters had to be revised within the exclusive CT fluoroscopy group, while only two revisions were necessary within the C-arm-supported CT fluoroscopy group. With C-arm-supported CT fluoroscopy, postinterventional drainage periods were reduced (median 13 vs 19 days; p < 0.001, t-test). CONCLUSION: Compared with exclusive cross-sectional image guidance, C-arm-supported CT fluoroscopy seems to improve placement of abscess drainage catheters to possibly reduce procedure times, drainage catheter revisions, and postinterventional drainage periods.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Evaluation of C-arm-supported CT fluoroscopy to facilitate percutaneous abscess drainage procedures. METHODS: Prospectively, 40 percutaneous drainage procedures were performed either with C-arm-supported CT fluoroscopy or with CT fluoroscopy alone. Hybrid imaging was performed on the CT couch after complementing a CT fluoroscopy scanner with a C-arm fluoroscopy unit. Procedure times, drainage revisions during follow-up, and postinterventional drainage periods were analyzed. RESULTS: When compared with exclusive CT fluoroscopic guidance, a median procedure time of 9 +/- 3.7 min versus 14.8 +/- 7.3 min was required for C-arm-supported CT fluoroscopy (p < 0.005, t-test). During follow-up, eight drainage catheters had to be revised within the exclusive CT fluoroscopy group, while only two revisions were necessary within the C-arm-supported CT fluoroscopy group. With C-arm-supported CT fluoroscopy, postinterventional drainage periods were reduced (median 13 vs 19 days; p < 0.001, t-test). CONCLUSION: Compared with exclusive cross-sectional image guidance, C-arm-supported CT fluoroscopy seems to improve placement of abscess drainage catheters to possibly reduce procedure times, drainage catheter revisions, and postinterventional drainage periods.
Authors: D Laganà; G Carrafiello; M Mangini; A Ianniello; A Giorgianni; P Nicotera; F Fontana; G Dionigi; C Fugazzola Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2008-09-13 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Bernhard C Meyer; Olaf Peter; Markus Nagel; Martin Hoheisel; Bernd B Frericks; Karl-Jürgen Wolf; Frank K Wacker Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2008-06-11 Impact factor: 5.315