Literature DB >> 19326992

Reliability of intraoperative high-resolution 2D ultrasound as an alternative to high-field strength MR imaging for tumor resection control: a prospective comparative study.

Venelin Miloslavov Gerganov1, Amir Samii, Arasch Akbarian, Lennart Stieglitz, Madjid Samii, Rudolf Fahlbusch.   

Abstract

OBJECT: Ultrasound may be a reliable but simpler alternative to intraoperative MR imaging (iMR imaging) for tumor resection control. However, its reliability in the detection of tumor remnants has not been definitely proven. The aim of the study was to compare high-field iMR imaging (1.5 T) and high-resolution 2D ultrasound in terms of tumor resection control.
METHODS: A prospective comparative study of 26 consecutive patients was performed. The following parameters were compared: the existence of tumor remnants after presumed radical removal and the quality of the images. Tumor remnants were categorized as: detectable with both imaging modalities or visible only with 1 modality.
RESULTS: Tumor remnants were detected in 21 cases (80.8%) with iMR imaging. All large remnants were demonstrated with both modalities, and their image quality was good. Two-dimensional ultrasound was not as effective in detecting remnants<1 cm. Two remnants detected with iMR imaging were missed by ultrasound. In 2 cases suspicious signals visible only on ultrasound images were misinterpreted as remnants but turned out to be a blood clot and peritumoral parenchyma. The average time for acquisition of an ultrasound image was 2 minutes, whereas that for an iMR image was approximately 10 minutes. Neither modality resulted in any procedure-related complications or morbidity.
CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative MR imaging is more precise in detecting small tumor remnants than 2D ultrasound. Nevertheless, the latter may be used as a less expensive and less time-consuming alternative that provides almost real-time feedback information. Its accuracy is highest in case of more confined, deeply located remnants. In cases of more superficially located remnants, its role is more limited.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19326992     DOI: 10.3171/2009.2.JNS08535

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosurg        ISSN: 0022-3085            Impact factor:   5.115


  15 in total

1.  Comparing two approaches to rigid registration of three-dimensional ultrasound and magnetic resonance images for neurosurgery.

Authors:  Laurence Mercier; Vladimir Fonov; Claire Haegelen; Rolando F Del Maestro; Kevin Petrecca; D Louis Collins
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2011-06-02       Impact factor: 2.924

2.  Multifunctional microbubbles and nanobubbles for photoacoustic and ultrasound imaging.

Authors:  Chulhong Kim; Ruogu Qin; Jeff S Xu; Lihong V Wang; Ronald Xu
Journal:  J Biomed Opt       Date:  2010 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.170

3.  Fusion imaging for intra-operative ultrasound-based navigation in neurosurgery.

Authors:  Francesco Prada; Massimiliano Del Bene; Luca Mattei; Cecilia Casali; Assunta Filippini; Federico Legnani; Antonella Mangraviti; Andrea Saladino; Alessandro Perin; Carla Richetta; Ignazio Vetrano; Alessandro Moiraghi; Marco Saini; Francesco DiMeco
Journal:  J Ultrasound       Date:  2014-06-24

4.  Sensitivity and specificity of linear array intraoperative ultrasound in glioblastoma surgery: a comparative study with high field intraoperative MRI and conventional sector array ultrasound.

Authors:  Jan Coburger; Angelika Scheuerle; Thomas Kapapa; Jens Engelke; Dietmar Rudolf Thal; Christian R Wirtz; Ralph König
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2015-04-10       Impact factor: 3.042

Review 5.  Standard clinical approaches and emerging modalities for glioblastoma imaging.

Authors:  Joshua D Bernstock; Sam E Gary; Neil Klinger; Pablo A Valdes; Walid Ibn Essayed; Hannah E Olsen; Gustavo Chagoya; Galal Elsayed; Daisuke Yamashita; Patrick Schuss; Florian A Gessler; Pier Paolo Peruzzi; Asim K Bag; Gregory K Friedman
Journal:  Neurooncol Adv       Date:  2022-05-26

Review 6.  Applications of Ultrasound in the Resection of Brain Tumors.

Authors:  Rahul Sastry; Wenya Linda Bi; Steve Pieper; Sarah Frisken; Tina Kapur; William Wells; Alexandra J Golby
Journal:  J Neuroimaging       Date:  2016-08-19       Impact factor: 2.486

Review 7.  Surgical oncology for gliomas: the state of the art.

Authors:  Nader Sanai; Mitchel S Berger
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-11-21       Impact factor: 66.675

8.  Applying machine learning to optical coherence tomography images for automated tissue classification in brain metastases.

Authors:  Jens Möller; Alexander Bartsch; Marcel Lenz; Iris Tischoff; Robin Krug; Hubert Welp; Martin R Hofmann; Kirsten Schmieder; Dorothea Miller
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2021-05-30       Impact factor: 2.924

9.  A new application of ultrasound-magnetic resonance multimodal fusion virtual navigation in glioma surgery.

Authors:  Chaofeng Liang; Manting Li; Jin Gong; Baoyu Zhang; Cong Lin; Haiyong He; Ke Zhang; Ying Guo
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-12

Review 10.  The Art of Intraoperative Glioma Identification.

Authors:  Zoe Z Zhang; Lisa B E Shields; David A Sun; Yi Ping Zhang; Matthew A Hunt; Christopher B Shields
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2015-07-30       Impact factor: 6.244

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.