| Literature DB >> 35722653 |
Shyamkumar N Keshava1, Vinu Moses1, Aswin Padmanabhan1.
Abstract
Context Computerized tomography (CT) is widely used for various interventions and there is a need for an effective navigation tool, for best outcomes. Aim The study was performed to evaluate the efficacy of light- and shadow-based needle positioning assistance device, an innovative navigation tool over the conventional freehand technique, in performing CT image-guided percutaneous interventions. Settings and Design This randomized control trial was performed among patients undergoing CT-guided percutaneous intervention for lung pathologies. Methodology A total of 60 participants were randomized into an intervention group and a control group. The accuracy of needle insertion and other efficacy parameters were assessed for both groups. Post needle placement, CT images were used to evaluate the study endpoints. Statistical Analysis Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS ver. 20 software. Results The mean needle positioning accuracy was 2.1 mm in the experimental group compared with 7.2 mm in the control group freehand procedures. The average time to position the needle at the desired target location was 2.5 minutes in the assisted procedure as compared with 5.3 minutes in the freehand procedure ( p < 0.05). The total number of check scans required to position the needle was 1.3 for assisted procedures and 1.9 for freehand procedures. Conclusion The use of shadow-based assistance device for CT-guided interventions is proven to be efficient and safer with high needle positioning accuracy. Indian Radiological Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ).Entities:
Keywords: CT-guided intervention; biopsy; lung; radiation exposure
Year: 2022 PMID: 35722653 PMCID: PMC9200487 DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1742243
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Indian J Radiol Imaging ISSN: 0970-2016
Fig. 1HigHNoon, shadow-based assistance device.
Fig. 2( A - E ) HigHNoon biopsy procedure. Left posterior paravertebral lesion seen on pre-procedural CECT ( A ). Patient in prone position with a radiopaque marker ( B ). Desired entry ( C ) and target ( D ) points marked in HigHNoon console. The generated track is having 7.88 degree medio-lateral (XY axis) and 1.93 degree cranial tilt (Z axis). Device positions itself to the planned angle. Outer coaxial needle advanced aligning the center of the hub to the laser crosshairs ( E ). Check CT demonstrating cranially tilted needle tip matching the planned trajectory, suitable for coaxial Trucut biopsy ( F ).
Fig. 3( A and B ) Three level conformation tool for needle placement accuracy. Level 1 ( A ) the laser crosshair centered on the instrument head (green arrow). Level 2 ( A ) the instrument shadows superimpose on the four limbs of the laser-cross hair (yellow arrow). Level 3 ( B ) the instrument head centered within the green circle displayed on the live monitor.
Fig. 4CT-guided lung biopsy done with HigHNoon assistance.
Background parameters of study patients
| Procedure parameters | Experiment | Control |
|---|---|---|
| Number of procedures | 30 | 30 |
| Average lesion size (cm) | 3.6 × 3.4 | 4.4 × 4 |
| # with lesion size (<1.5 cm) | 5 | 1 |
| # with lesion size(≥1.5 cm and <3 cm) | 4 | 3 |
| # with Lesion size (≥3 cm and <5 cm) | 13 | 14 |
| # with Lesion size ≥5 cm | 8 | 12 |
| Average patient age (y) | 53.2 | 47.8 |
Fig. 5Comparison of outcomes in terms of procedure duration.
Efficacy parameters between experiment and control groups
| Procedure parameters | Experiment | Control |
|---|---|---|
| Procedure time | ||
| Average plan time (min) | 0.8 | 2.8 |
| Average needle insertion time (min) | 2.5 | 5.3 |
| Total procedure time (min) | 19.9 | 25.8 |
| Needle placement error | ||
| Orbital angle error (degrees) | 2.4 | 6.8 |
| CC angle error (degrees) | 2.3 | 5.7 |
| Average error at target (mm) | 2.1 | 7.2 |
| Average error at entry (mm) | 0.8 | 5.9 |
| Others | ||
| Average Skin punctures | 1 | 1.2 |
| Average check scans | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Successful yield | 100% | 96% |
Comparison between experiment and control group in terms of the test of statistical significance
| Parameter | Mean difference | S.E of mean |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total procedure time | −5.6 | 2.05 | −2.76 |
0.008
|
| Needle insertion time | −2.8 | 1.02 | −2.73 |
0.008
|
| Number of check scans | −0.6 | 0.3 | −2.008 |
0.049
|
| Entry error | −5.02 | 0.8 | −6.008 |
0.0001
|
| Target error | −5.3 | 1.2 | −4.5 |
0.0001
|
Statistically significant.