ArticlePloS one2020
Integration and evaluation of a gradient-based needle navigation system for percutaneous MR-guided interventions.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Magnetic resonance - guided treatment of low-flow vascular malformations and the technologies to potentiate adoption.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to integrate an interactive gradient-based needle navigation system and to evaluate the feasibility and accuracy of the system for real-time MR guided needle puncture in a multi-ring phantom and in vivo in a porcine model. The gradient-based navigation system was implemented in a 1.5T MRI. An interactive multi-slice real-time sequence was modified to provide the excitation gradients used by two sets of three orthogonal pick-up coils integrated into a needle holder. Position and orientation of the needle holder were determined and the trajectory was superimposed on pre-acquired MR images. A gel phantom with embedded ring targets was used to evaluate accuracy using 3D distance from needle tip to target. Six punctures were performed in animals to evaluate feasibility, time, overall error (target to needle tip) and system error (needle tip to the guidance needle trajectory) in vivo. In the phantom experiments, the overall error was 6.2±2.9 mm (mean±SD) and 4.4±1.3 mm, respectively. In the porcine model, the setup time ranged from 176 to 204 seconds, the average needle insertion time was 96.3±40.5 seconds (min: 42 seconds; max: 154 seconds). The overall error and the system error was 8.8±7.8 mm (min: 0.8 mm; max: 20.0 mm) and 3.3±1.4 mm (min: 1.8 mm; max: 5.2 mm), respectively.
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.