Literature DB >> 26573489

Cone-Beam CT with Fluoroscopic Overlay Versus Conventional CT Guidance for Percutaneous Abdominopelvic Abscess Drain Placement.

Tyler McKay1, Christopher R Ingraham2, Guy E Johnson2, Matthew J Kogut2, Sandeep Vaidya2, Siddharth A Padia3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare technical success and procedure time for percutaneous abscess drain placement with fluoroscopic cone-beam computed tomography (CT) and two-axis needle guidance versus conventional CT guidance.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 85 consecutive patients undergoing abdominopelvic abscess drain placement guided by fluoroscopic cone-beam CT or conventional CT were retrospectively reviewed over a 2-year period. Forty-three patients underwent drain placement with cone-beam CT using XperGuide navigation and 42 underwent placement with conventional 64-slice CT. Patient characteristics, median abscess size (6.8 cm vs 7.8 cm; P = .14), and depth to abscess (7.2 cm vs 7.7 cm; P = .88) were similar between groups.
RESULTS: Technical success rates were 98% (42 of 43) in the cone-beam CT group and 100% (42 of 42) in the conventional CT group (P = .32), with a 10-F pigtail drainage catheter inserted in the majority of cases. There were no complications in either group. There was no significant difference in effective dose between groups (9.6 mSv vs 10.7 mSv; P = .30). Procedure times were significantly shorter in the cone-beam CT group (43 min vs 62 min; P = .02). In addition, during the study period, there was a gradual improvement in procedure time in the cone-beam CT group (50% reduction), whereas procedure time did not change for the conventional CT group.
CONCLUSIONS: Cone-beam CT guidance appears to be equivalent to conventional CT guidance for drain placement into medium-sized abdominopelvic collections, yielding similar technical success rates and radiation doses, with the additional benefit of reduced procedure times.
Copyright © 2016 SIR. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26573489     DOI: 10.1016/j.jvir.2015.09.016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vasc Interv Radiol        ISSN: 1051-0443            Impact factor:   3.464


  6 in total

1.  Transforaminal intrathecal delivery of nusinersen using cone-beam computed tomography for children with spinal muscular atrophy and extensive surgical instrumentation: early results of technical success and safety.

Authors:  John J Weaver; Niranjana Natarajan; Dennis W W Shaw; Susan D Apkon; Kevin S H Koo; Giri M Shivaram; Eric J Monroe
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2017-11-13

2.  Cone beam computed tomography-guided transpterygoidal aspiration of a carotid space abscess in Lemierre's syndrome.

Authors:  Eric J Monroe; Catherine M Amlie-Lefond
Journal:  Radiol Case Rep       Date:  2018-03-30

3.  Cone-beam computed tomography with automated bone subtraction in preoperative embolization for pelvic bone tumors.

Authors:  Dae Yong Park; Hyo-Cheol Kim; Jin Wook Chung; Saebeom Hur; Minuk Kim; Myungsu Lee; Hwan Jun Jae
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-04-18       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Radiofrequency ablation guided by cone beam computed tomography for hepatocellular carcinoma: a comparative study of clinical results with the conventional spiral computed tomography-guided procedure.

Authors:  Tianshi Lyu; Jian Wang; Shoujin Cao; Li Song; Xiaoqiang Tong; Yinghua Zou
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2019-06-27       Impact factor: 1.671

5.  Evaluation of three-dimensional iterative image reconstruction in C-arm-based interventional cone-beam CT: A phantom study in comparison with customary reconstruction technique.

Authors:  Shigeru Suzuki; Yoshiaki Katada; Tomoko Takayanagi; Haruto Sugawara; Takuya Ishikawa; Yuzo Yamamoto; Hiroo Wada
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 1.889

6.  Distribution of scatter radiation by C-arm cone-beam computed tomography in angiographic suite: measurement of doses and effectiveness of protection devices.

Authors:  Mayako Yamaji; Tsuneo Ishiguchi; Shuji Koyama; Shuji Ikeda; Akira Kitagawa; Makiyo Hagihara; Yuji Itoh; Masaru Nakamura; Toyohiro Ota; Kojiro Suzuki
Journal:  Nagoya J Med Sci       Date:  2021-05       Impact factor: 1.131

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.