Trial reportEuropean radiology2020
Body interventional procedures: which is the best method for CT guidance?
Trial report in European radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of patient radiation exposure and procedure time between CT-fluoroscopy and spiral CT for lumbar epidural steroid injections.Skeletal radiology · 2025Article
- Computed-Tomography-Guided Lung Biopsy: A Practice-Oriented Document on Techniques and Principles and a Review of the Literature.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Helical CT versus intermittent CT fluoroscopic guidance for musculoskeletal needle biopsies: impact on radiation exposure, procedure time, diagnostic yield, and adverse events.Skeletal radiology · 2023Article
- Ligamentum Flavum Rupture by Epidural Injection Using Ultrasound with SMI Method.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2023Article
- Direct Visualization of Cervical Interlaminar Epidural Injections Using Sonography.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2022Article
- Computed Tomography-Navigation™ Electromagnetic System Compared to Conventional Computed Tomography Guidance for Percutaneous Lung Biopsy: A Single-Center Experience.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare sequential fluoroscopy guidance with spiral guidance in terms of safety, effectiveness, speed and radiation in interventional whole body procedures.
methodsThis study was a retrospective analysis of data from the prospective, randomised controlled, multicentre CTNAV2 study. The present analysis included 385 patients: 247 in the sequential group (SEQ) and 138 in the spiral group (SPI). Safety was assessed by the number of major complications. Effectiveness was measured according to the number of targets reached. Data on procedural time and radiation delivered to patients were also collected.
resultsThere was no significant difference between the two groups (SEQ vs SPI) regarding the success rate (99.6% vs 99.3%, p = 0.680), procedural time (7 min 40 s ± 5 min 48 s vs 7 min 13 s ± 7 min 33 s, p = 0.507), or major complications (2.43% vs 5.8%, p = 0.101). Radiation dose to patients was 84% lower in the sequential group (54.8 ± 51.8 mGy cm vs 352.6 ± 404 mGy cm, p < 0.0001).
conclusionsSequential CT fluoroscopy-guided whole-body interventional procedures seems to be as safe, effective and fast as spiral guidance, while also yielding a significant decrease in the radiation dose to patients. KEY POINTS: • Sequential CT fluoroscopy and spiral acquisition are comparable in terms of safety, effectiveness and speed. • Procedural times are comparable despite an increased number of acquisitions in sequential fluoroscopy. • Radiation dose to patients is 84% lower in sequential fluoroscopy compared with spiral CT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31776742What 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.