ArticleTechnology in cancer research & treatment2017
Deflection Analysis of Different Needle Designs for Prostate Biopsy and Focal Therapy.
Article in Technology in cancer research & treatment, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Feasibility of 3-D Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse (ARFI) Imaging for Targeted Prostate Biopsy Guidance.Ultrasonic imaging · 2025Trial
- Ex-Vivo Prostate Evaluation of Fused-Data TREIT Using Only Biopsy-Probe Electrodes.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2026Article
- Automatic segmentation of prostate and extracapsular structures in MRI to predict needle deflection in percutaneous prostate intervention.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2023Article
- Needle deflection and tissue sampling length in needle biopsy.Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials · 2020Article
- Follow-up of negative MRI-targeted prostate biopsies: when are we missing cancer?World journal of urology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe biopsy needles currently used were designed for a transrectal biopsy and are known to experience significant deflection from the point of entry into the gland to the needle tip.
methodsFive designs were selected for testing: 18-gauge Bard, 15-gauge lancet tip needle with 12° vet-point cannula, and trocar tip needle with 12°, 15°, and 20° vet-point cannulas. The 15-gauge needle was designed to take a variable specimen sample between 20 and 60 mm, whereas the Bard needle specimen bed was fixed at 20 mm. The needles were bench tested on a spring-loaded platform and fired into gelatin matrix with modulus of elasticity similar to human prostate.
resultsThe Bard device with lancet tip needle deflected an average of 0.9 mm (range 0.3-1.3 mm) and 1.9° (range 0.6°-2.8°). Increasing needle diameter from 18-gauge Bard to 15-gauge variable with the same lancet tip needle design resulted in an average deflection across the 3 test lengths of 0.9 mm (range 0-2.0 mm) and 0.9° (range 0°-2.0°) with no significant difference. On the contrary, the use of the 3-point trocar tip needles with 12°, 15°, and 20° vet-point cannulas demonstrated significant reduction in the extent of deflection in both millimeters and degrees. There was no deflection at the 2- and 4-cm shots for both spring loads and preloads for the 3 vet tip angles tested. At 6 cm, the 20° vet tip performed the best.
conclusionWe proposed a mechanism that provides more accurate prostate sampling by combining a 3-point trocar tip on the needle with a 20° vet tip on the cutting cannula. Using the phantom, mimicking prostate gland tissue density, no deflection was revealed between 20- and 60-mm biopsy lengths, which should permit a straight sample in the majority of prostate glands and improve cancer localization for focal therapy planning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.