Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26175571›Full record

ArticleKorean journal of radiology

Intervention Planning Using a Laser Navigation System for CT-Guided Interventions: A Phantom and Patient Study.

Tatjana Gruber-Rouh, Clara Lee, Jan Bolck, Nagy N N Naguib, Boris Schulz, Katrin Eichler, Rene Aschenbach, Julian L Wichmann, Thomas J Vogl, Stephan Zangos

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Korean journal of radiology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Tatjana Gruber-RouhInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, J. W. Goethe University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt 60590, Germany.
Clara LeeInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, J. W. Goethe University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt 60590, Germany.
Jan BolckInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, J. W. Goethe University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt 60590, Germany.
Nagy N N NaguibInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, J. W. Goethe University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt 60590, Germany. ; Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria 21514, Egypt.
Boris SchulzInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, J. W. Goethe University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt 60590, Germany.
Katrin EichlerInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, J. W. Goethe University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt 60590, Germany.
Rene AschenbachDepartment of Radiology, HELIOS Klinikum Erfurt, Erfurt 99089, Germany.
Julian L WichmannInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, J. W. Goethe University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt 60590, Germany.
Thomas J VoglInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, J. W. Goethe University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt 60590, Germany.
Stephan ZangosInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, J. W. Goethe University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt 60590, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate the accuracy, efficiency and radiation dose of a novel laser navigation system (LNS) compared to those of free-handed punctures on computed tomography (CT). MATERIALS AND

methodsSixty punctures were performed using a phantom body to compare accuracy, timely effort, and radiation dose of the conventional free-handed procedure to those of the LNS-guided method. An additional 20 LNS-guided interventions were performed on another phantom to confirm accuracy. Ten patients subsequently underwent LNS-guided punctures.

resultsThe phantom 1-LNS group showed a target point accuracy of 4.0 ± 2.7 mm (freehand, 6.3 ± 3.6 mm; p = 0.008), entrance point accuracy of 0.8 ± 0.6 mm (freehand, 6.1 ± 4.7 mm), needle angulation accuracy of 1.3 ± 0.9° (freehand, 3.4 ± 3.1°; p < 0.001), intervention time of 7.03 ± 5.18 minutes (freehand, 8.38 ± 4.09 minutes; p = 0.006), and 4.2 ± 3.6 CT images (freehand, 7.9 ± 5.1; p < 0.001). These results show significant improvement in 60 punctures compared to freehand. The phantom 2-LNS group showed a target point accuracy of 3.6 ± 2.5 mm, entrance point accuracy of 1.4 ± 2.0 mm, needle angulation accuracy of 1.0 ± 1.2°, intervention time of 1.44 ± 0.22 minutes, and 3.4 ± 1.7 CT images. The LNS group achieved target point accuracy of 5.0 ± 1.2 mm, entrance point accuracy of 2.0 ± 1.5 mm, needle angulation accuracy of 1.5 ± 0.3°, intervention time of 12.08 ± 3.07 minutes, and used 5.7 ± 1.6 CT-images for the first experience with patients.

conclusionLaser navigation system improved accuracy, duration of intervention, and radiation dose of CT-guided interventions.

Indexed as

LasersAdultFemaleHumansImage-Guided BiopsyMaleMiddle AgedNeedlesPhantoms, ImagingPuncturesTomography, X-Ray ComputedCT-guided interventionsFirst experience with patientsLaser navigation systemLNSPhantom study

Identifiers

PMID26175571
PMCPMC4499536

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.