ArticleScientific reports2021
Stereotactic navigation versus ultrasound guidance in placing IRE applicators in a liver phantom.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. 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.
- Stereotactic two-needle irreversible electroporation of liver tumors near critical structures: a proof-of-concept study.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of stereotactic CT-guided navigation and ultrasound guided navigation for placing electrodes in Irreversible electroporation in a liver phantom. A liver phantom with multiple tumours was used and interventionists placed four IRE electrodes around each tumour guided either by stereotactic CT-guided navigation or ultrasound. The goal was to place them in a perfect 20 × 20 mm square with parallel electrodes. After each treatment, a CT-scan was performed. The accuracy in pairwise electrode distance, pairwise parallelism and time per tumour was analysed. Eight interventionists placed four electrodes around 55 tumours, 25 with ultrasound and 30 with stereotactic CT-guided navigation. 330 electrode pairs were analysed, 150 with ultrasound and 180 with stereotactic CT-navigation. The absolute median deviation from the optimal distance was 1.3 mm (range 0.0 to 11.3 mm) in the stereotactic CT-navigation group versus 7.1 mm (range 0.3 to 18.1 mm) in the Ultrasound group (p < 0.001). The mean angle between electrodes in each pair was 2.7 degrees (95% CI 2.4 to 3.1 degrees) in the stereotactic CT-navigation group and 5.5 degrees (95% CI 5.0 to 6.1 degrees) in the Ultrasound group (p < 0.001). The mean time for placing the electrodes was 15:11 min (95% CI 13:05 to 17:18 min) in the stereotactic CT-navigation group and 6:40 min (95% CI 5:28 to 7:52 min) in the Ultrasound group. The use of stereotactic CT-navigation in placing IRE-electrodes in a liver phantom is more accurate, but more time consuming, compared to ultrasound guidance.
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.