BACKGROUND: Percutaneous biopsy for musculoskeletal tumors commonly relies on imaging adjuncts including ultrasound (US), CT, or MRI. These modalities however have disadvantages (US) or are cumbersome, not universally available, and costly (CT and MRI). US fusion is a novel technique that fuses previously obtained CT or MRI data with real-time US, which allows biopsies to be performed in an US suite. It has proven useful in various body systems but musculoskeletal applications remain scarce. Our goal is to evaluate the fusion technology and determine its ability to diagnose musculoskeletal tumors. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We determined whether biopsies performed via US fusion compared with CT guidance provide equivalent diagnostic yield and accuracy and allow quicker biopsy scheduling and procedure times. METHODS: Forty-seven patients were assigned to undergo either US fusion (with MR, n = 16 or CT, n = 15) or CT-guided biopsies (n = 16). We evaluated adequacy of the histologic specimen (diagnostic yield) and correlation with surgical pathology (diagnostic accuracy). We determined scheduling times and lengths of the biopsy. RESULTS: US fusion and CT-guided biopsy groups had comparable diagnostic yields (CT = 94%; US/MRI = 94%; US/CT = 93%) and accuracy (CT = 83%; US/MRI = 90%; US/CT = 100%). US fusion biopsies were faster to schedule and perform. All procedures were safe with minimal complications. CONCLUSIONS: US fusion provides a high diagnostic yield and accuracy comparable to CT-guided biopsy while performed in the convenience of an US suite. This may have resulted in the observed faster scheduling and biopsy times. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, diagnostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous biopsy for musculoskeletal tumors commonly relies on imaging adjuncts including ultrasound (US), CT, or MRI. These modalities however have disadvantages (US) or are cumbersome, not universally available, and costly (CT and MRI). US fusion is a novel technique that fuses previously obtained CT or MRI data with real-time US, which allows biopsies to be performed in an US suite. It has proven useful in various body systems but musculoskeletal applications remain scarce. Our goal is to evaluate the fusion technology and determine its ability to diagnose musculoskeletal tumors. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We determined whether biopsies performed via US fusion compared with CT guidance provide equivalent diagnostic yield and accuracy and allow quicker biopsy scheduling and procedure times. METHODS: Forty-seven patients were assigned to undergo either US fusion (with MR, n = 16 or CT, n = 15) or CT-guided biopsies (n = 16). We evaluated adequacy of the histologic specimen (diagnostic yield) and correlation with surgical pathology (diagnostic accuracy). We determined scheduling times and lengths of the biopsy. RESULTS: US fusion and CT-guided biopsy groups had comparable diagnostic yields (CT = 94%; US/MRI = 94%; US/CT = 93%) and accuracy (CT = 83%; US/MRI = 90%; US/CT = 100%). US fusion biopsies were faster to schedule and perform. All procedures were safe with minimal complications. CONCLUSIONS: US fusion provides a high diagnostic yield and accuracy comparable to CT-guided biopsy while performed in the convenience of an US suite. This may have resulted in the observed faster scheduling and biopsy times. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, diagnostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Authors: Frank Lindseth; Jon Harald Kaspersen; Steinar Ommedal; Thomas Langø; Jon Bang; Jørn Hokland; Geirmund Unsgaard; Toril A Nagelhus Hernes Journal: Comput Aided Surg Date: 2003
Authors: Jenny K Hoang; Terry T Yoshizumi; Greta Toncheva; Linda Gray; Andreia R Gafton; Billy K Huh; James D Eastwood; Christopher D Lascola; Lynne M Hurwitz Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Anwar Hau; Il Kim; Susan Kattapuram; Francis J Hornicek; Andrew E Rosenberg; Mark C Gebhardt; Henry J Mankin Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2002-03-07 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Victoria Sherwood; John Civale; Ian Rivens; David J Collins; Martin O Leach; Gail R ter Haar Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2014-08-07 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Serena Carriero; Gianmarco Della Pepa; Lorenzo Monfardini; Renato Vitale; Duccio Rossi; Andrea Masperi; Giovanni Mauri Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-03-19