ArticleEuropean radiology2023
Improving puncture accuracy in percutaneous CT-guided needle insertion with wireless inertial measurement unit: a phantom study.
Article in European radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The potential use of scout views as an adjunct tool in CT-guided intervention.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Active breathing coordinator combines with custom-designed puncture needle improves diagnostic accuracy of ≤20 mm pulmonary nodules under CT-guidance: a real world prospective study.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesA novel method applying inertial measurement units (IMUs) was developed to assist CT-guided puncture, which enables real-time displays of planned and actual needle trajectories. The method was compared with freehand and laser protractor-assisted methods.
methodsThe phantom study was performed by three operators with 8, 2, and 0 years of experience in CT-guided procedure conducted five consecutive needle placements for three target groups using three methods (freehand, laser protractor-assisted, or IMU-assisted method). The endpoints included mediolateral angle error and caudocranial angle error of the first pass, the procedure time, the total number of needle passes, and the radiation dose.
resultsThere was a significant difference in the number of needle passes (IMU 1.2 ± 0.42, laser protractor 2.9 ± 1.6, freehand 3.6 ± 2.0 time, p < 0.001), the procedure time (IMU 3.0 ± 1.2, laser protractor 6.4 ± 2.9, freehand 6.2 ± 3.1 min, p < 0.001), the mediolateral angle error of the first pass (IMU 1.4 ± 1.2, laser protractor 1.6 ± 1.3, freehand 3.7 ± 2.5 degree, p < 0.001), the caudocranial angle error of the first pass (IMU 1.2 ± 1.2, laser protractor 5.3 ± 4.7, freehand 3.9 ± 3.1 degree, p < 0.001), and the radiation dose (IMU 250.5 ± 74.1, laser protractor 484.6 ± 260.2, freehand 561.4 ± 339.8 mGy-cm, p < 0.001) among three CT-guided needle insertion methods.
conclusionThe wireless IMU improves the angle accuracy and speed of CT-guided needle punctures as compared with laser protractor guidance and freehand techniques. KEY POINTS: • The IMU-assisted method showed a significant decrease in the number of needle passes (IMU 1.2 ± 0.42, laser protractor 2.9 ± 1.6, freehand 3.6 ± 2.0 time, p < 0.001). • The IMU-assisted method showed a significant decrease in the procedure time (IMU 3.0 ± 1.2, laser protractor 6.4 ± 2.9, freehand 6.2 ± 3.1 min, p < 0.001). • The IMU-assisted method showed a significant decrease in the mediolateral angle error of the first pass and the caudocranial angle error of the first pass.
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.