OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy, the duration and factors that influence the duration of MRI-guided liver or soft-tissue biopsies. METHODS: Nineteen liver biopsies and 19 soft-tissue biopsies performed using 1.5T-MRI guidance were retrospectively analysed. Diagnostic performance and complications were assessed. Intervention time was subdivided into preparation period, puncture period and control period. Correlation between procedure time and target size, skin-to-target-distance, used sequences and interventionalists' experience were analysed. RESULTS: Overall sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 0.86, 1.0 and 0.92, respectively. Two minor complications occurred. Overall median procedure time was 103.5 min. Liver biopsies lasted longer than soft-tissue biopsies (mean([soft-tissue]): 73.0 min, mean([liver]): 134.1 min, P < 0.001). The most time consuming part was the preparation period in both, soft-tissue and liver biopsies corresponding to 59.6% and 47.4% of the total intervention time, respectively. Total procedure time in liver biopsies (P = 0.027) and puncture period in liver and soft-tissue biopsies (P ([liver]) = 0.048, P ([soft-tissue]) = 0.005) was significantly prolonged for longer skin-to-target-distances. Lower numbers of image acquisitions (P ([liver]) = 0.0007, P ([soft-tissue]) = 0.0012) and interventionalists' experience reduces the procedure duration significantly (P < 0.05), besides all false-negative results appeared during the first five biopsies of each individual radiologist. CONCLUSION: The interventionalists' experience, skin-to-target-distances and number of image acquisition influence the procedure time significantly. KEY POINTS: •Appropriate training and supervision is essential for inexperienced interventionalists. •Two perpendicular image orientations should confirm the correct biopsy needle position. •Communication between interventionalist and technician is essential for a fluent biopsy procedure. •To shorten intervention time appropriate previous imaging is essential.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy, the duration and factors that influence the duration of MRI-guided liver or soft-tissue biopsies. METHODS: Nineteen liver biopsies and 19 soft-tissue biopsies performed using 1.5T-MRI guidance were retrospectively analysed. Diagnostic performance and complications were assessed. Intervention time was subdivided into preparation period, puncture period and control period. Correlation between procedure time and target size, skin-to-target-distance, used sequences and interventionalists' experience were analysed. RESULTS: Overall sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 0.86, 1.0 and 0.92, respectively. Two minor complications occurred. Overall median procedure time was 103.5 min. Liver biopsies lasted longer than soft-tissue biopsies (mean([soft-tissue]): 73.0 min, mean([liver]): 134.1 min, P < 0.001). The most time consuming part was the preparation period in both, soft-tissue and liver biopsies corresponding to 59.6% and 47.4% of the total intervention time, respectively. Total procedure time in liver biopsies (P = 0.027) and puncture period in liver and soft-tissue biopsies (P ([liver]) = 0.048, P ([soft-tissue]) = 0.005) was significantly prolonged for longer skin-to-target-distances. Lower numbers of image acquisitions (P ([liver]) = 0.0007, P ([soft-tissue]) = 0.0012) and interventionalists' experience reduces the procedure duration significantly (P < 0.05), besides all false-negative results appeared during the first five biopsies of each individual radiologist. CONCLUSION: The interventionalists' experience, skin-to-target-distances and number of image acquisition influence the procedure time significantly. KEY POINTS: •Appropriate training and supervision is essential for inexperienced interventionalists. •Two perpendicular image orientations should confirm the correct biopsy needle position. •Communication between interventionalist and technician is essential for a fluent biopsy procedure. •To shorten intervention time appropriate previous imaging is essential.
Authors: C W Koenig; S H Duda; J Truebenbach; U G Schott; F Maurer; C D Claussen; P L Pereira Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: John A Carrino; Bharti Khurana; John E Ready; Stuart G Silverman; Carl S Winalski Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Donald L Miller; Stephen Balter; Patricia E Cole; Hollington T Lu; Beth A Schueler; Michael Geisinger; Alejandro Berenstein; Robin Albert; Jeffrey D Georgia; Patrick T Noonan; John F Cardella; James St George; Eric J Russell; Tim W Malisch; Robert L Vogelzang; George L Miller; Jon Anderson Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Rüdiger Hoffmann; Hansjörg Rempp; Frank Eibofner; David-Emanuel Keßler; Gunnar Blumenstock; Jakob Weiß; Philippe L Pereira; Konstantin Nikolaou; Stephan Clasen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-07-02 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Berardo Di Matteo; Alberto Polignano; Francesco Onorato; Agostino La Porta; Francesco Iacono; Tommaso Bonanzinga; Giovanni Raspugli; Maurilio Marcacci; Elizaveta Kon Journal: Cartilage Date: 2020-09-22 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Martin A Rube; Andrew B Holbrook; Benjamin F Cox; Razvan Buciuc; Andreas Melzer Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2014-09-02 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Martin A Rube; Fabiola Fernandez-Gutierrez; Benjamin F Cox; Andrew B Holbrook; J Graeme Houston; Richard D White; Helen McLeod; Mahsa Fatahi; Andreas Melzer Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2014-08-08 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Marcos D Guimaraes; Edson Marchiori; Bruno C Odisio; Bruno Hochhegger; Almir G V Bitencourt; Charles E Zurstrassen; Chiang C Tyng; Jefferson L Gross; Rubens Chojniak; Myrna C B Godoy Journal: World J Surg Oncol Date: 2014-07-10 Impact factor: 2.754