Reduction of Radiation Dose and Scanning Time While Preserving Diagnostic Yield: A Comparison of Battery-Powered and Manual Bone Biopsy Systems.
Journal
AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology
ISSN: 1936-959X
Titre abrégé: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8003708
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2020
03 2020
Historique:
received:
23
10
2019
accepted:
11
01
2020
pubmed:
8
2
2020
medline:
21
10
2020
entrez:
8
2
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There is scarcity of data on the comparative efficacy between bone biopsy drill systems across various types of bone lesions. Our aim was to investigate differences in diagnostic yield, scanning time, and radiation dose between manual and battery-powered bone biopsy systems in CT-guided biopsies of lytic, sclerotic, and infectious bone lesions. This was a retrospective single-center institutional review board-approved study. A total of 585 CT-guided core needle biopsies were performed at 1 institution from May 2010 to February 2019. Classification of bone lesions, location, bone biopsy system, suspected origin of primary disease, final pathologic diagnosis, diagnostic yield, presence of crush artifacts, radiation dose, and scanning times were collected. For the battery-powered system, OnControl was used. For the manual drill system, Bonopty, Osteo-site, and Laurane drill systems were used. Comparisons in lytic and sclerotic lesions and suspected discitis/osteomyelitis were made using the Fisher exact test. Subgroup analysis of the drill systems for scanning time and radiation dose was performed by 1-way ANOVA. Our patient cohorts consisted of a total of 585 patients with 422 lytic, 110 sclerotic, and 53 suspected infectious lesions. The mean age was 62 ± 13 years with a male/female ratio of 305:280 for all lesions. The diagnostic yield was 85.5% (362/422) for lytic, 82.7% (91/110) for sclerotic, 50.9% (27/53) for infectious lesions, and 82.1% (480/585) for all lesions. No statistical difference was found when comparing diagnostic yields of powered drills with the manual systems for lytic, sclerotic, and infectious lesions. However, in a subgroup analysis, radiation dose and scanning time were significantly lower for powered drill compared with manual drill systems in lytic ( Our findings demonstrate that there was no statistically significant difference in diagnostic yield when comparing battery-powered and manual bone biopsy systems for CT-guided bone biopsies; however, the use of the power drill system resulted in significantly reduced scanning time and radiation dose in lytic and sclerotic lesions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
There is scarcity of data on the comparative efficacy between bone biopsy drill systems across various types of bone lesions. Our aim was to investigate differences in diagnostic yield, scanning time, and radiation dose between manual and battery-powered bone biopsy systems in CT-guided biopsies of lytic, sclerotic, and infectious bone lesions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This was a retrospective single-center institutional review board-approved study. A total of 585 CT-guided core needle biopsies were performed at 1 institution from May 2010 to February 2019. Classification of bone lesions, location, bone biopsy system, suspected origin of primary disease, final pathologic diagnosis, diagnostic yield, presence of crush artifacts, radiation dose, and scanning times were collected. For the battery-powered system, OnControl was used. For the manual drill system, Bonopty, Osteo-site, and Laurane drill systems were used. Comparisons in lytic and sclerotic lesions and suspected discitis/osteomyelitis were made using the Fisher exact test. Subgroup analysis of the drill systems for scanning time and radiation dose was performed by 1-way ANOVA.
RESULTS
Our patient cohorts consisted of a total of 585 patients with 422 lytic, 110 sclerotic, and 53 suspected infectious lesions. The mean age was 62 ± 13 years with a male/female ratio of 305:280 for all lesions. The diagnostic yield was 85.5% (362/422) for lytic, 82.7% (91/110) for sclerotic, 50.9% (27/53) for infectious lesions, and 82.1% (480/585) for all lesions. No statistical difference was found when comparing diagnostic yields of powered drills with the manual systems for lytic, sclerotic, and infectious lesions. However, in a subgroup analysis, radiation dose and scanning time were significantly lower for powered drill compared with manual drill systems in lytic (
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings demonstrate that there was no statistically significant difference in diagnostic yield when comparing battery-powered and manual bone biopsy systems for CT-guided bone biopsies; however, the use of the power drill system resulted in significantly reduced scanning time and radiation dose in lytic and sclerotic lesions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32029464
pii: ajnr.A6428
doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A6428
pmc: PMC7077903
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
387-392Informations de copyright
© 2020 by American Journal of Neuroradiology.
Références
Joint Bone Spine. 2005 Jan;72(1):53-60
pubmed: 15681249
Hematol Rep. 2011 Jan 13;3(1):e8
pubmed: 22184530
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014 Dec;35(12):2243-7
pubmed: 25034779
Diagn Pathol. 2011 Mar 23;6:23
pubmed: 21429220
Bone. 2007 Aug;41(2):256-65
pubmed: 17567548
Skeletal Radiol. 2016 Feb;45(2):273-8
pubmed: 26572628
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Nov;471(11):3601-9
pubmed: 23861048
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2017 Aug;28(8):1073-1081.e1
pubmed: 28549709
Radiology. 2008 Sep;248(3):962-70
pubmed: 18710986
Clin Radiol. 2003 Oct;58(10):791-7
pubmed: 14521889
Skeletal Radiol. 2002 Jun;31(6):349-53
pubmed: 12073119
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2018 May;39(5):981-985
pubmed: 29650783
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2016 Oct;27(10):1618-22
pubmed: 27670996
Hematol Rep. 2011 Oct 19;3(3):e21
pubmed: 22593813
Skeletal Radiol. 2018 May;47(5):661-669
pubmed: 29218391
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011 Aug;197(2):457-61
pubmed: 21785094
Orthopade. 2001 Aug;30(8):545-50
pubmed: 11552396
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2014 Dec;17(4):325-31
pubmed: 25091040
Skeletal Radiol. 2006 Mar;35(3):138-43
pubmed: 16391943
Clin Radiol. 2014 Jan;69(1):e43-7
pubmed: 24268511
J Orthop Sci. 2004;9(2):122-5
pubmed: 15045539
Skeletal Radiol. 2015 Dec;44(12):1845-8
pubmed: 26315889
Radiol Bras. 2014 Sep-Oct;47(5):269-74
pubmed: 25741100
Radiology. 1999 Sep;212(3):682-6
pubmed: 10478232
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016 May;206(5):W83-6
pubmed: 26959290