Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36135087›Full record

ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2022

Evaluation of a Navigated 3D Ultrasound Integration for Brain Tumor Surgery: First Results of an Ongoing Prospective Study.

Danilo Aleo, Ziad Elshaer, Andreas Pfnür, Patrick J Schuler, Marco Maria Fontanella, Christian Rainer Wirtz, Andrej Pala, Jan Coburger

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05956977 (Evaluation of 3D Ultrasound in Brain Tumor Surgery), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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.

NCT05956977 naunknown statusnot on this map

Evaluation of 3D Ultrasound in Brain Tumor Surgery

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of UlmRan2021 to 2025Enrolled90ConditionsResidual TumorArmsresection with help of 3D ultrasound
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Image-Guided Brain Tumor Surgery.Recent results in cancer research. Fortschritte der Krebsforschung. Progres dans les recherches sur le cancer · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The Value of Intraoperative Ultrasound in Brain Surgery.Advances and technical standards in neurosurgery · 2024
    Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

8 authors.

Danilo AleoNeurosugery, Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Science and Public Health, University of Brescia, 25121 Brescia, Italy.
Ziad ElshaerDepartment of Neurosurgery, Ulm University, Lindenallee 2, 89312 Günzburg, Germany.
Andreas PfnürDepartment of Neurosurgery, Ulm University, Lindenallee 2, 89312 Günzburg, Germany.
Patrick J SchulerDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Ulm University Medical Center, 89081 Ulm, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1065-8709
Marco Maria FontanellaNeurosugery, Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Science and Public Health, University of Brescia, 25121 Brescia, Italy.
Christian Rainer WirtzDepartment of Neurosurgery, Ulm University, Lindenallee 2, 89312 Günzburg, Germany.
Andrej PalaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Ulm University, Lindenallee 2, 89312 Günzburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6653-701X
Jan CoburgerDepartment of Neurosurgery, Ulm University, Lindenallee 2, 89312 Günzburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3677-8258

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of the study was to assess the quality, accuracy and benefit of navigated 2D and 3D ultrasound for intra-axial tumor surgery in a prospective study. Patients intended for gross total resection were consecutively enrolled. Intraoperatively, a 2D and 3D iUS-based resection was performed. During surgery, the image quality, clinical benefit and navigation accuracy were recorded based on a standardized protocol using Likert’s scales. A total of 16 consecutive patients were included. Mean ratings of image quality in 2D iUS were significantly higher than in 3D iUS (p < 0.001). There was no relevant decrease in rating during the surgery in 2D and 3D iUS (p > 0.46). The benefit was rated 2.2 in 2D iUS and 2.6 in 3D iUS (p = 0.08). The benefit remained stable in 2D, while there was a slight decrease in the benefit in 3D after complete tumor resection (p = 0.09). The accuracy was similar in both (mean 2.2 p = 0.88). Seven patients had a small tumor remnant in intraoperative MRT (mean 0.98 cm3) that was not appreciated with iUS. Crucially, 3D iUS allows for an accurate intraoperative update of imaging with slightly lower image quality than 2D iUS. Our preliminary data suggest that the benefit and accuracy of 2D and 3D iUS navigation do not undergo significant variations during tumor resection.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsNeuronavigationHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalProspective StudiesUltrasonographyextent of resectionglioma surgeryimage qualityintraoperative 3D ultrasoundnavigation

Identifiers

PMID36135087
PMCPMC9498154

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.