Chuan-Dong Li1, Zhen-Guo Huang1, Hong-Liang Sun1, Li-Tao Wang2, Yu-Li Wang1. 1. Department of Radiology, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, China. 2. Department of oncology comprehensive treatment, The Second Hospital of Chifeng, Inner Mongolia, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of pre-operative localization of ground glass nodule (GGN) using embolization microcoils and the locating needles designed for pulmonary nodules. METHODS: From June 2019 to December 2020, 429 patients who received CT-guided localization of single GGN before video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) were enrolled. The diameter and depth of GGNs were 0.84 ± 0.39 cm and 1.66 ± 1.37 cm. Among 429 cases, the first 221 GGNs were marked with microcoils (the microcoil group), and the remaining 208 GGNs were marked with the locating needles designed for pulmonary nodules (the locating needle group). SPSS 17.0 statistical software was used to compare the marking success rate, marking time, marking-related complications between two groups. p values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The marking time in the microcoil group was longer than that in the locating needle group (11.1 ± 3.9 vs 8.2 ± 2.0 min, t = -7.87, p = 0.000). The marking success rate in the microcoil group was lower than that in the locating needle group (91.4% vs 98.6%, χ2 = 11.27, p = 0.001). In the microcoil group, marking failures included 16 cases of microcoil dislocation and 3 cases of unsatisfactory microcoil position, while all 3 cases of marking failure in the locating needle group were due to unsatisfactory anchor position. No significant differences in the incidence of total complications (23.1% vs 22.1%), pneumothorax (18.1% vs 19.2%), hemorrhage (9.5% vs 9.1%), and hemoptysis (1.8% vs 1.4%) were observed between the two groups. All the complications were minor and did not need special treatment. Except for one case in the microcoil group, which was converted to thoracotomy, the remaining 428 GGNs were successfully resected by VATS. CONCLUSIONS: It is safe and effective to perform pre-operative localization of GGN using either embolization microcoil or the locating needle designed for pulmonary nodules. The locating needle is superior to microcoil for marking GGN in terms of procedure time and the success rate. The complication rate of both methods is similar. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The locating needle designed for pulmonary nodules has recently been used to mark pulmonary nodule. Its structure can effectively avoid dislocation after localization, and the marking process is simple and quick. Compared with localization using microcoil, it takes less time and has higher success rate to mark GGNs using the locating needle. The complication rate of both methods is similar.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of pre-operative localization of ground glass nodule (GGN) using embolization microcoils and the locating needles designed for pulmonary nodules. METHODS: From June 2019 to December 2020, 429 patients who received CT-guided localization of single GGN before video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) were enrolled. The diameter and depth of GGNs were 0.84 ± 0.39 cm and 1.66 ± 1.37 cm. Among 429 cases, the first 221 GGNs were marked with microcoils (the microcoil group), and the remaining 208 GGNs were marked with the locating needles designed for pulmonary nodules (the locating needle group). SPSS 17.0 statistical software was used to compare the marking success rate, marking time, marking-related complications between two groups. p values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The marking time in the microcoil group was longer than that in the locating needle group (11.1 ± 3.9 vs 8.2 ± 2.0 min, t = -7.87, p = 0.000). The marking success rate in the microcoil group was lower than that in the locating needle group (91.4% vs 98.6%, χ2 = 11.27, p = 0.001). In the microcoil group, marking failures included 16 cases of microcoil dislocation and 3 cases of unsatisfactory microcoil position, while all 3 cases of marking failure in the locating needle group were due to unsatisfactory anchor position. No significant differences in the incidence of total complications (23.1% vs 22.1%), pneumothorax (18.1% vs 19.2%), hemorrhage (9.5% vs 9.1%), and hemoptysis (1.8% vs 1.4%) were observed between the two groups. All the complications were minor and did not need special treatment. Except for one case in the microcoil group, which was converted to thoracotomy, the remaining 428 GGNs were successfully resected by VATS. CONCLUSIONS: It is safe and effective to perform pre-operative localization of GGN using either embolization microcoil or the locating needle designed for pulmonary nodules. The locating needle is superior to microcoil for marking GGN in terms of procedure time and the success rate. The complication rate of both methods is similar. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The locating needle designed for pulmonary nodules has recently been used to mark pulmonary nodule. Its structure can effectively avoid dislocation after localization, and the marking process is simple and quick. Compared with localization using microcoil, it takes less time and has higher success rate to mark GGNs using the locating needle. The complication rate of both methods is similar.
Authors: Theo J Klinkenberg; Lars Dinjens; Rienhart F E Wolf; Anthonie J van der Wekken; Caroline van de Wauwer; Geertruida H de Bock; Wim Timens; Massimo A Mariani; Harry J M Groen Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2017-02-23 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Laura L Donahoe; Elsie T Nguyen; Tae-Bong Chung; Lan-Chau Kha; Marcelo Cypel; Gail E Darling; Marc de Perrot; Shaf Keshavjee; Andrew F Pierre; Thomas K Waddell; Kazuhiro Yasufuku Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Jim Burdine; Lyle D Joyce; Michael B Plunkett; Subbarao Inampudi; Mitchell G Kaye; Daniel H Dunn Journal: Chest Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Jonathan C L Rodrigues; Andrew F Pierre; Kate Hanneman; Michael Cabanero; John Kavanagh; Thomas K Waddell; Tae-Bong Chung; Mini Pakkal; Shaf Keshavjee; Marcelo Cypel; Kazuhiro Yasufuku; Elsie T Nguyen Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-02-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Tom I Powell; Dalbhir Jangra; Joanne C Clifton; Humberto Lara-Guerra; Neal Church; John English; Ken Evans; John Yee; Harvey Coxson; John R Mayo; Richard J Finley Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 12.969