R E Hopkins1, M Bradley. 1. Department of Clinical Radiology, North Bristol NHS Trust, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, U.K.
Abstract
AIM: To demonstrate the circumstances where echogenically enhanced biopsy needles confer an increase in visualization during ultrasound-guided biopsy using an in-vitro experiment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An experiment using both standard and echogenically enhanced needles was conducted in a purpose built interventional phantom. The needle tip echogenicity and shaft visualization was recorded at different angles (20 and 60 degrees ) between the ultrasound probe and needle. The needle tip echogenicity was also recorded in four different angles of bevel rotation. The experiment was performed using a total of 18 different needles of 18 and 20 gauge. RESULTS: The experiment confirmed some previous findings. The needle was better visualised at an angle of approximately 60 degrees to the probe. The needle tip was optimally visualized with the bevel facing the transducer or 180 degrees to it. Needle tip movement improved conspicuity. Using an optimal angle of approach (60 degrees ) the use of an echogenic needle did not confer any increase in conspicuity. If the transducer to needle angle was suboptimal (20 degrees ) then there was increased visualization of some echogenically enhanced needles. CONCLUSION: Optimisation of the conditions prior to ultrasound-guided needle biopsy will increase the visualization of the chosen device thus aiding the interventionalist. Needle gauge, bevel position, movement of the needle and the probe to needle angle all affect conspicuity. Needle coating or roughening does not improve tip visualization if the angle between the needle and probe can be optimized (60 degrees ). In unfavourable situations when the angle is suboptimal (20 degrees ), we have shown that echogenic enhancement of the needle tip can make it more visible.
AIM: To demonstrate the circumstances where echogenically enhanced biopsy needles confer an increase in visualization during ultrasound-guided biopsy using an in-vitro experiment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An experiment using both standard and echogenically enhanced needles was conducted in a purpose built interventional phantom. The needle tip echogenicity and shaft visualization was recorded at different angles (20 and 60 degrees ) between the ultrasound probe and needle. The needle tip echogenicity was also recorded in four different angles of bevel rotation. The experiment was performed using a total of 18 different needles of 18 and 20 gauge. RESULTS: The experiment confirmed some previous findings. The needle was better visualised at an angle of approximately 60 degrees to the probe. The needle tip was optimally visualized with the bevel facing the transducer or 180 degrees to it. Needle tip movement improved conspicuity. Using an optimal angle of approach (60 degrees ) the use of an echogenic needle did not confer any increase in conspicuity. If the transducer to needle angle was suboptimal (20 degrees ) then there was increased visualization of some echogenically enhanced needles. CONCLUSION: Optimisation of the conditions prior to ultrasound-guided needle biopsy will increase the visualization of the chosen device thus aiding the interventionalist. Needle gauge, bevel position, movement of the needle and the probe to needle angle all affect conspicuity. Needle coating or roughening does not improve tip visualization if the angle between the needle and probe can be optimized (60 degrees ). In unfavourable situations when the angle is suboptimal (20 degrees ), we have shown that echogenic enhancement of the needle tip can make it more visible.
Authors: Marius George Linguraru; Nikolay V Vasilyev; Pedro J Del Nido; Robert D Howe Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2007-05-22 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: Massimo Lamperti; Andrew R Bodenham; Mauro Pittiruti; Michael Blaivas; John G Augoustides; Mahmoud Elbarbary; Thierry Pirotte; Dimitrios Karakitsos; Jack Ledonne; Stephanie Doniger; Giancarlo Scoppettuolo; David Feller-Kopman; Wolfram Schummer; Roberto Biffi; Eric Desruennes; Lawrence A Melniker; Susan T Verghese Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2012-05-22 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Matthew P Fronheiser; Salim F Idriss; Patrick D Wolf; Stephen W Smith Journal: IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control Date: 2008 Impact factor: 2.725
Authors: Shou-Jiang Tang; Andreas S Vilmann; Adrian Saftoiu; Wanmei Wang; Costin Teodor Streba; Peter P Fink; Michael Griswold; Ruonan Wu; Christoph F Dietrich; Christian Jenssen; Michael Hocke; Marcus Kantowski; Jürgen Pohl; Paul Fockens; Jouke T Annema; Erik H F M van der Heijden; Roald Flesland Havre; Khanh Do-Cong Pham; Rastislav Kunda; Pierre H Deprez; Jinga Mariana; Enrique Vazquez-Sequeiros; Alberto Larghi; Elisabetta Buscarini; Pietro Fusaroli; Maor Lahav; Rajesh Puri; Pramod Kumar Garg; Malay Sharma; Fauze Maluf-Filho; Anand Sahai; William R Brugge; Linda S Lee; Harry R Aslanian; Andrew Y Wang; Vanessa M Shami; Arnold Markowitz; Ali A Siddiqui; Girish Mishra; James M Scheiman; Gerard Isenberg; Uzma D Siddiqui; Raj J Shah; James Buxbaum; Rabindra R Watson; Field F Willingham; Manoop S Bhutani; Michael J Levy; Cynthia Harris; Michael B Wallace; Christian Pállson Nolsøe; Torben Lorentzen; Niels Bang; Sten Mellerup Sørensen; Odd Helge Gilja; Mirko D'Onofrio; Fabio Piscaglia; Norbert Gritzmann; Maija Radzina; Zeno Adrian Sparchez; Paul S Sidhu; Simon Freeman; Timothy C McCowan; Cyrillo Rodrigues de Araujo; Akash Patel; Mohammad Adel Ali; Garth Campbell; Edward Chen; Peter Vilmann Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2016-02-10 Impact factor: 9.427