Literature DB >> 19192638

Evaluation of a powered intraosseous device for bone marrow sampling.

Stephen C Cohen1, Jill M Gore.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to evaluate a powered bone marrow aspiration device for use in diagnosing disease and monitoring disease course and medical therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The device was used in accordance with practice guidelines and directions for use. Data collection included insertion success, time to insertion and complications. Patient pain levels were rated 0-10 (10 = extreme pain). Device operators rated ease of use of the device 0-10 (10 = outstanding).
RESULTS: There were 55 patients from three centers. Successful insertion and aspiration were achieved in 54 out of 55 patients (98.1%). Mean insertion time was 4.9 +/- 3.0 seconds; significantly faster than that previously reported. There were no complications. The mean insertion pain score was 2.5 +/- 2.2 and the mean aspiration pain score was 3.7 +/- 2.5. The six operators rated the ease of use of the device at a mean score of 8.3 +/- 1.7.
CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that the powered aspiration device is safe and effective for bone marrow aspirations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19192638

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anticancer Res        ISSN: 0250-7005            Impact factor:   2.480


  8 in total

1.  Battery-powered bone drill: caution needed in densely blastic lesions.

Authors:  Connie Y Chang; F Joseph Simeone; Ambrose J Huang
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2015-08-28       Impact factor: 2.199

2.  CT-guided radiofrequency ablation of osteoid osteoma using a novel battery-powered drill.

Authors:  Dirk Schnapauff; Florian Streitparth; Korinna Jöhrens; Gero Wieners; Federico Collettini; Bernd Hamm; Bernhard Gebauer
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2014-11-05       Impact factor: 2.199

3.  Using a powered bone marrow biopsy system results in shorter procedures, causes less residual pain to adult patients, and yields larger specimens.

Authors:  James R Berenson; Ori Yellin; Brent Blumenstein; Deanna Bojanower; Jonathan Croopnick; David Aboulafia; Gargi Upadhyaya; Cathy Spadaccini
Journal:  Diagn Pathol       Date:  2011-03-23       Impact factor: 2.644

4.  The OnControl bone marrow biopsy technique is superior to the standard manual technique for hematologists-in-training: a prospective, randomized comparison.

Authors:  Louis Juden Reed; Radha Raghupathy; Marianna Strakhan; Thomas E Philbeck; Mimi Y Kim; Ramakrishna Battini; Zulfiqar Hussain; Shaad Abdullah; Sarah Schweber; Kamalesh Bala; Thomas Pacello
Journal:  Hematol Rep       Date:  2011-10-25

5.  Comparison of Bone Marrow Biopsy Specimens Obtained Using a Motorized Device and Manual Biopsy Systems.

Authors:  Catherine A Glennon; Janet M Woodroof; Suman Kambhampati; Alexis C Battershell; Serena R O'Connor; Kiley B Roberts
Journal:  Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs       Date:  2018 Oct-Dec

6.  Evaluation of potential tissue heating during percutaneous drill-assisted bone sampling in an in vivo porcine study.

Authors:  Stefan M Niehues; Sefer Elezkurtaj; Keno K Bresssem; Bernd Hamm; Christoph Erxleben; Janis Vahldiek; Lisa C Adams
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2021-08-30       Impact factor: 2.199

7.  Comparison of a powered bone marrow biopsy device with a manual system: results of a prospective randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Christoph Marcus Bucher; Thomas Lehmann; André Tichelli; Alexander Tzankov; Stephan Dirnhofer; Jakob Passweg; Alicia Rovó
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2012-10-26       Impact factor: 3.411

8.  Differences in Radiation Exposure of CT-Guided Percutaneous Manual and Powered Drill Bone Biopsy.

Authors:  Sebastian Zensen; Sumitha Selvaretnam; Marcel Opitz; Denise Bos; Johannes Haubold; Jens Theysohn; Michael Forsting; Nika Guberina; Axel Wetter
Journal:  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol       Date:  2021-05-11       Impact factor: 2.740

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.