Literature DB >> 21606230

A prospective randomised study of a rotary powered device (OnControl) for bone marrow aspiration and biopsy.

Ronan T Swords1, Javier Anguita, Russell A Higgins, Andrea C Yunes, Michael Naski, Swaminathan Padmanabhan, Kevin R Kelly, Devalingam Mahalingam, Thomas Philbeck, Larry Miller, Tatiana A Puga, Francis J Giles, Marsha C Kinney, Andrew J Brenner.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Bone marrow aspiration and biopsy is an invasive procedure associated with morbidity and mortality risk. We compared a powered bone marrow aspiration and biopsy device to the traditional method by relatively assessing pain scores, procedure times, biopsy capture rates, quality of material retrieved, and safety and operator satisfaction.
METHODS: Two large academic medical centres participated in this trial. Patients were randomised to have procedures carried out using the powered system or the manual technique. A visual analogue scale pain score was recorded immediately following skin puncture and once again at the end of the procedure for each patient. Procedure time was measured from skin puncture to core specimen acquisition. Pathologic assessment of 30 randomised samples was carried out. Operator satisfaction with devices was measured on a scale of 0-10, with 10 as the highest rating.
RESULTS: Five operators from two sites enrolled 50 patients (powered, n=25; manual, n=25). Groups were evenly matched, with no significant differences in the means for age, weight and height. The powered system was superior to the manual system with respect to patient perceived pain from needle insertion (2.6±2.0 vs 4.1±2.5, p=0.022) and procedural time (100.0±72.8 s vs 224.1±79.0 s, p<0.001). Overall pain scores at the end of both procedures were comparable (3.2±2.2 vs 3.8±3.0, p=0.438). No complications were observed in either arm of the study. Blinded pathologic analysis of the specimens retrieved revealed that cores obtained using the powered system were longer and wider than those obtained using the manual technique (25.4±12.3 mm² vs 11.9±5.6 mm², p=0.001). For marrow aspiration, no difference was seen between groups for clot/particle spicules or smear spicules. Operator assessment favoured the use of the powered device.
CONCLUSIONS: Results of this trial suggest that the use of a powered bone marrow biopsy device significantly reduces needle insertion pain and procedural time when compared to a manual technique. The superior size and overall quality of core specimens retrieved by the powered device provides more material for pathologic evaluation, thereby increasing diagnostic yield and reducing the need for repeat procedures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21606230     DOI: 10.1136/jclinpath-2011-200047

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Pathol        ISSN: 0021-9746            Impact factor:   3.411


  11 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.  Quality and cost comparison of powered versus manual bone marrow biopsy devices in patients with myelofibrosis.

Authors:  Abhishek Maiti; Nicholas J Short; Srdan Verstovsek; Cynthia A Powers; Cheryl A Fullmer; Steven R Reyes; Carlos E Bueso-Ramos
Journal:  Leuk Lymphoma       Date:  2017-02-28

3.  Drill-assisted, fluoroscopy-guided vertebral body access for radiofrequency ablation: Technical case series.

Authors:  Adam N Wallace; Randy O Chang; Anderanik Tomasian; Jack W Jennings
Journal:  Interv Neuroradiol       Date:  2015-07-15       Impact factor: 1.610

4.  Fluoroscopy-guided intervertebral disc biopsy with a coaxial drill system.

Authors:  Adam N Wallace; Rafael A Pacheco; Ross Vyhmeister; Anderanik Tomasian; Randy O Chang; Jack W Jennings
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2015-11-16       Impact factor: 2.199

5.  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

6.  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

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

Review 8.  A powered bone marrow biopsy system versus manual methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

Authors:  Jeffrey Voigt; Michael Mosier
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2013-06-01       Impact factor: 3.411

9.  Gluteal artery injuries including pseudoaneurysm associated with powered bone marrow biopsies.

Authors:  Aditi P Singh; Gopichand Pendurti; Shashi Singh; Alexander Shestopalov; Thomas Pacello; Louis J Reed
Journal:  Hematol Rep       Date:  2017-09-26

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.