H-X Xu1, M-D Lu, L-N Liu, L-H Guo. 1. Department of Medical Ultrasound, Tenth People's Hospital of Tongji University, Shanghai, China. xuhuixiong@hotmail.com
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the usefulness of magnetic navigation in ultrasound (US)-guided interventional procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-seven patients who were scheduled for US-guided interventional procedures (20 liver cancer ablation procedures and 17 other procedures) were included. Magnetic navigation with three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), 3D US, and position-marking magnetic navigation were used for guidance. The influence on clinical outcome was also evaluated. RESULTS: Magnetic navigation facilitated applicator placement in 15 of 20 ablation procedures for liver cancer in which multiple ablations were performed; enhanced guidance in two small liver cancers invisible on conventional US but visible at CT or MRI; and depicted the residual viable tumour after transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for liver cancer in one procedure. In four of 17 other interventional procedures, position-marking magnetic navigation increased the visualization of the needle tip. Magnetic navigation was beneficial in 11 (55%) of 20 ablation procedures; increased confidence but did not change management in five (25%); added some information but did not change management in two (10%); and made no change in two (10%). In the other 17 interventional procedures, the corresponding numbers were 1 (5.9%), 2 (11.7%), 7 (41.2%), and 7 (41.2%), respectively (p=0.002). CONCLUSION: Magnetic navigation in US-guided interventional procedure provides solutions in some difficult cases in which conventional US guidance is not suitable. It is especially useful in complicated interventional procedures such as ablation for liver cancer.
AIM: To evaluate the usefulness of magnetic navigation in ultrasound (US)-guided interventional procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-seven patients who were scheduled for US-guided interventional procedures (20 liver cancer ablation procedures and 17 other procedures) were included. Magnetic navigation with three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), 3D US, and position-marking magnetic navigation were used for guidance. The influence on clinical outcome was also evaluated. RESULTS: Magnetic navigation facilitated applicator placement in 15 of 20 ablation procedures for liver cancer in which multiple ablations were performed; enhanced guidance in two small liver cancers invisible on conventional US but visible at CT or MRI; and depicted the residual viable tumour after transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for liver cancer in one procedure. In four of 17 other interventional procedures, position-marking magnetic navigation increased the visualization of the needle tip. Magnetic navigation was beneficial in 11 (55%) of 20 ablation procedures; increased confidence but did not change management in five (25%); added some information but did not change management in two (10%); and made no change in two (10%). In the other 17 interventional procedures, the corresponding numbers were 1 (5.9%), 2 (11.7%), 7 (41.2%), and 7 (41.2%), respectively (p=0.002). CONCLUSION: Magnetic navigation in US-guided interventional procedure provides solutions in some difficult cases in which conventional US guidance is not suitable. It is especially useful in complicated interventional procedures such as ablation for liver cancer.