Joshua D Kuban1, Alda L Tam2, Steven Y Huang3, Joe E Ensor4,5, Asher S Philip6, Geraldine J Chen7, Judy Ahrar8, Ravi Murthy9, Rony Avritscher10, David C Madoff11, Armeen Mahvash12, Kamran Ahrar13, Michael J Wallace14, Arun C Nachiappan15, Sanjay Gupta16. 1. Department of Radiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Mailstop 360, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. jdkuban@gmail.com. 2. Unit 1471, Department of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, PO Box 301402, Houston, TX, 77230-1402, USA. alda.tam@mdanderson.org. 3. Unit 1471, Department of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, PO Box 301402, Houston, TX, 77230-1402, USA. syhuang@mdanderson.org. 4. Unit 1471, Department of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, PO Box 301402, Houston, TX, 77230-1402, USA. joensor@mdanderson.org. 5. Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. joensor@mdanderson.org. 6. Department of Radiology, University of Texas Medical School at Houston, 6431 Fannin Street, 2.130B, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. asher.s.philip@uth.tmc.edu. 7. Department of Radiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Mailstop 360, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. gjchen@gmail.com. 8. Unit 1471, Department of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, PO Box 301402, Houston, TX, 77230-1402, USA. jahrar@mdanderson.org. 9. Unit 1471, Department of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, PO Box 301402, Houston, TX, 77230-1402, USA. rmurthy@mdanderson.org. 10. Unit 1471, Department of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, PO Box 301402, Houston, TX, 77230-1402, USA. rony.avritscher@mdanderson.org. 11. Division of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center, 525 East 68th Street, Payson Pavilion, 5, New York, NY, 10065, USA. dcm9006@med.cornell.edu. 12. Unit 1471, Department of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, PO Box 301402, Houston, TX, 77230-1402, USA. armeen.mahvash@mdanderson.org. 13. Unit 1471, Department of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, PO Box 301402, Houston, TX, 77230-1402, USA. kahrar@mdanderson.org. 14. Unit 1471, Department of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, PO Box 301402, Houston, TX, 77230-1402, USA. mwallace@mdanderson.org. 15. Department of Radiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Mailstop 360, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. nachiapp@bcm.edu. 16. Unit 1471, Department of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, PO Box 301402, Houston, TX, 77230-1402, USA. sgupta@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of coaxial guide needle gauge (18 vs. 19 gauge) on the risk of pneumothorax and chest tube placement after CT-guided lung biopsy. METHODS: Imaging records of all patients who had undergone CT-guided lung biopsies at our institution from March 1, 2006 to December 9, 2010 were retrospectively reviewed. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the effect of various patient-, lesion-, and procedure-related variables on subsequent pneumothorax and chest tube placement rates. RESULTS: The study included 4262 biopsies (2304 with 18-gauge and 1958 with 19-gauge coaxial guide needles) in 3917 patients. The rates of pneumothorax and chest tube placement were 30.2 and 15%, respectively. Pneumothorax occurred in 35% of procedures performed with 18-gauge needles and in 24.5% of procedures performed with 19-gauge needles (p < 0.0001). Chest tube insertion occurred in 16.7% of procedures performed with 18-gauge needles and in 13.1% of procedures performed with 19-gauge needles (p = 0.0011). Multivariate logistic regression models demonstrated that the use of an 18-gauge needle was associated with a higher rate of pneumothorax (p < 0.0001) and chest tube placement (p = 0.0003). The following factors were also associated with higher rates of pneumothorax and chest tube placement: older age, emphysema, greater number of pleural surfaces crossed, and a longer biopsy needle path length. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a 19-gauge coaxial guide needle significantly decreases the risk of pneumothorax and chest tube placement compared with an 18-guage needle.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of coaxial guide needle gauge (18 vs. 19 gauge) on the risk of pneumothorax and chest tube placement after CT-guided lung biopsy. METHODS: Imaging records of all patients who had undergone CT-guided lung biopsies at our institution from March 1, 2006 to December 9, 2010 were retrospectively reviewed. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the effect of various patient-, lesion-, and procedure-related variables on subsequent pneumothorax and chest tube placement rates. RESULTS: The study included 4262 biopsies (2304 with 18-gauge and 1958 with 19-gauge coaxial guide needles) in 3917 patients. The rates of pneumothorax and chest tube placement were 30.2 and 15%, respectively. Pneumothorax occurred in 35% of procedures performed with 18-gauge needles and in 24.5% of procedures performed with 19-gauge needles (p < 0.0001). Chest tube insertion occurred in 16.7% of procedures performed with 18-gauge needles and in 13.1% of procedures performed with 19-gauge needles (p = 0.0011). Multivariate logistic regression models demonstrated that the use of an 18-gauge needle was associated with a higher rate of pneumothorax (p < 0.0001) and chest tube placement (p = 0.0003). The following factors were also associated with higher rates of pneumothorax and chest tube placement: older age, emphysema, greater number of pleural surfaces crossed, and a longer biopsy needle path length. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a 19-gauge coaxial guide needle significantly decreases the risk of pneumothorax and chest tube placement compared with an 18-guage needle.
Authors: Judy U Ahrar; Sanjay Gupta; Joe E Ensor; Armeen Mahvash; Sharjeel H Sabir; Joseph R Steele; Stephen E McRae; Rony Avritscher; Steven Y Huang; Bruno C Odisio; Ravi Murthy; Kamran Ahrar; Michael J Wallace; Alda L Tam Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2016-11-08 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Woo Hyeon Lim; Chang Min Park; Soon Ho Yoon; Hyun-Ju Lim; Eui Jin Hwang; Jong Hyuk Lee; Jin Mo Goo Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-10-02 Impact factor: 5.315