Vanessa M Banz1, Philip C Müller2, Pascale Tinguely1, Daniel Inderbitzin1, Delphine Ribes2, Matthias Peterhans2,3, Daniel Candinas1, Stefan Weber4. 1. Inselspital Berne, Department of Visceral Surgery and Medicine, Inselspital, Berne, Switzerland. 2. ARTORG Center for Computer-Aided Surgery, University of Berne, 3010 Berne, Switzerland. 3. CAScination AG, Steigerhubelstrasse 3, 3008, Berne, Switzerland. 4. ARTORG Center for Computer-Aided Surgery, University of Berne, 3010 Berne, Switzerland. stefan.weber@artorg.unibe.ch.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Image-guided systems have recently been introduced for their application in liver surgery. We aimed to identify and propose suitable indications for image-guided navigation systems in the domain of open oncologic liver surgery and, more specifically, in the setting of liver resection with and without microwave ablation. METHOD: Retrospective analysis was conducted in patients undergoing liver resection with and without microwave ablation using an intraoperative image-guided stereotactic system during three stages of technological development (accuracy: 8.4 ± 4.4 mm in phase I and 8.4 ± 6.5 mm in phase II versus 4.5 ± 3.6 mm in phase III). It was evaluated, in which indications image-guided surgery was used according to the different stages of technical development. RESULTS: Between 2009 and 2013, 65 patients underwent image-guided surgical treatment, resection alone (n = 38), ablation alone (n = 11), or a combination thereof (n = 16). With increasing accuracy of the system, image guidance was progressively used for atypical resections and combined microwave ablation and resection instead of formal liver resection (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Clinical application of image guidance is feasible, while its efficacy is subject to accuracy. The concept of image guidance has been shown to be increasingly efficient for selected indications in liver surgery. While accuracy of available technology is increasing pertaining to technological advancements, more and more previously untreatable scenarios such as multiple small, bilobar lesions and so-called vanishing lesions come within reach.
BACKGROUND: Image-guided systems have recently been introduced for their application in liver surgery. We aimed to identify and propose suitable indications for image-guided navigation systems in the domain of open oncologic liver surgery and, more specifically, in the setting of liver resection with and without microwave ablation. METHOD: Retrospective analysis was conducted in patients undergoing liver resection with and without microwave ablation using an intraoperative image-guided stereotactic system during three stages of technological development (accuracy: 8.4 ± 4.4 mm in phase I and 8.4 ± 6.5 mm in phase II versus 4.5 ± 3.6 mm in phase III). It was evaluated, in which indications image-guided surgery was used according to the different stages of technical development. RESULTS: Between 2009 and 2013, 65 patients underwent image-guided surgical treatment, resection alone (n = 38), ablation alone (n = 11), or a combination thereof (n = 16). With increasing accuracy of the system, image guidance was progressively used for atypical resections and combined microwave ablation and resection instead of formal liver resection (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Clinical application of image guidance is feasible, while its efficacy is subject to accuracy. The concept of image guidance has been shown to be increasingly efficient for selected indications in liver surgery. While accuracy of available technology is increasing pertaining to technological advancements, more and more previously untreatable scenarios such as multiple small, bilobar lesions and so-called vanishing lesions come within reach.
Entities:
Keywords:
Image guidance; Intraoperative navigation; Liver ablation; Liver surgery
Authors: Pier Cristoforo Giulianotti; Andrea Coratti; Fabio Sbrana; Pietro Addeo; Francesco Maria Bianco; Nicolas Christian Buchs; Mario Annechiarico; Enrico Benedetti Journal: Surgery Date: 2010-06-08 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Matthias Peterhans; Sylvain Anderegg; Philippe Gaillard; Thiago Oliveira-Santos; Stefan Weber Journal: Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc Date: 2010
Authors: Logan W Clements; Prashanth Dumpuri; William C Chapman; Benoit M Dawant; Robert L Galloway; Michael I Miga Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2011-04-25 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Marcus Kaar; Michael Figl; Rainer Hoffmann; Wolfgang Birkfellner; Markus Stock; Dietmar Georg; Gregor Goldner; Johann Hummel Journal: Med Phys Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: K J Oldhafer; M Peterhans; A Kantas; A Schenk; G Makridis; S Pelzl; K C Wagner; S Weber; G A Stavrou; M Donati Journal: Chirurg Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 0.955
Authors: Marc Garbey; Toan B Nguyen; Albert Y Huang; Vid Fikfak; Brian J Dunkin Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Iwan Paolucci; Marius Schwalbe; Gian Andrea Prevost; Anja Lachenmayer; Daniel Candinas; Stefan Weber; Pascale Tinguely Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-02-12 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Philip C Müller; Daniel C Steinemann; Felix Nickel; Lukas Chinczewski; Beat P Müller-Stich; Georg R Linke; Kaspar Z'graggen Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-03-09 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Iwan Paolucci; Raluca-Maria Sandu; Luca Sahli; Gian Andrea Prevost; Federico Storni; Daniel Candinas; Stefan Weber; Anja Lachenmayer Journal: IEEE Open J Eng Med Biol Date: 2020-02-14
Authors: Philip C Müller; Daniel C Steinemann; Lukas Chinczewski; Gencay Hatiboglu; Felix Nickel; Kaspar Z'graggen; Beat P Müller-Stich Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 4.584