Evaluation of Accuracy and Performance of a Novel, Fully Gantry Integrated 3D Laser System for Computed Tomography Guided Needle Placement: A Phantom Study.
computed tomography
intervention
laser-guidance
phantom
radiation exposure
safety
Journal
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2075-4418
Titre abrégé: Diagnostics (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101658402
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Jan 2023
12 Jan 2023
Historique:
received:
18
11
2022
revised:
21
12
2022
accepted:
10
01
2023
entrez:
21
1
2023
pubmed:
22
1
2023
medline:
22
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The purpose of this phantom study was to compare the accuracy, speed and technical performance of CT guided needle placement using a conventional technique versus a novel, gantry integrated laser guidance system for both an expert and a novice. A total of 80 needle placements were performed in an abdominal phantom using conventional CT guidance and a laser guidance system. Analysis of pooled results of expert and novice showed a significant reduction of time (277 vs. 204 s, p = 0.001) and of the number of needle corrections (3.28 vs. 1.58, p < 0.001) required when using laser guidance versus conventional technique. No significant improvement in absolute (3.81 vs. 3.41 mm, p = 0.213) or angular deviation (2.85 vs. 2.18°, p = 0.079) was found. With either approach, the expert was significantly faster (conventional guidance: 207 s vs. 346 s, p < 0.001; laser guidance: 144 s vs. 264 s, p < 0.001) and required fewer needle corrections (conventional guidance: 4 vs. 3, p = 0.027; laser guidance: 2 vs. 1, p = 0.001) than the novice. The laser guidance system helped both the expert and the novice to perform CT guided interventions in a phantom faster and with fewer needle corrections compared to the conventional technique, while achieving similar accuracy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36673092
pii: diagnostics13020282
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13020282
pmc: PMC9858339
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Invest Radiol. 2017 Jun;52(6):374-380
pubmed: 28141614
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2022 Jan;45(1):62-68
pubmed: 34414495
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2021 Sep;44(9):1323-1353
pubmed: 34231007
Sci Rep. 2020 Jan 31;10(1):1618
pubmed: 32005871
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2021 Jun;44(6):968-975
pubmed: 33474604
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2015 Oct;38(5):1252-60
pubmed: 25376924
J Am Coll Radiol. 2015 Jan;12(1):82-9
pubmed: 25086959
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2018 Apr;41(4):639-644
pubmed: 29159685
Semin Intervent Radiol. 2019 Mar;36(1):26-28
pubmed: 30936613
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2014 Feb;37(1):241-6
pubmed: 23778886
PLoS One. 2021 Nov 3;16(11):e0258896
pubmed: 34731178
Eur J Radiol. 2015 Oct;84(10):1970-5
pubmed: 26184039
Sci Rep. 2020 Nov 2;10(1):18835
pubmed: 33139835
Abdom Radiol (NY). 2021 Oct;46(10):5007-5016
pubmed: 34146132
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2022 Nov;33(11):1416-1423.e4
pubmed: 35970505
Eur Radiol. 2020 Mar;30(3):1342-1349
pubmed: 31773299
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2021 Mar;44(3):500-506
pubmed: 33409545
Hepatology. 2019 Sep;70(3):840-850
pubmed: 30520063
Eur Radiol. 2012 Apr;22(4):930-7
pubmed: 22071776