ArticleCardiovascular and interventional radiology2024
Puncture Cube Patient-Mounted Navigation System versus Freehand Method for CT-Guided Needle Placement: Study on a Neoprene Covered Elliptical Cylinder Gelatin Phantom.
Article in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe study aims to show how the "Puncture Cube" (PC) (Medical Templates, Egg, Switzerland) compares to the freehand method (FHM) for CT-guided punctures.
methodsThe PC is a patient-mounted disassemblable cube consisting of an upper and lower template with multiple holes each to predefine puncture trajectory. A total of 80 punctures (FHM in-plane, FHM off-plane, PC in-plane, PC off-plane) was performed by 4 radiologists on a target 9.1 cm below surface level of a neoprene covered elliptical cylinder gelatin phantom. The PC was never disassembled. Evaluated parameters were procedure time, number of CT-scans, euclidean distance (ED) and normal distance (ND). Respective parameters of FHM and PC were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Levene test with significance levels of 5%.
resultsPC achieved smaller ED and ND values after initial needle insertion without corrections for both in-plane and off-plane punctures (P > 0.05). Variance of initial NDs was off-plane significantly larger for FHM. Final ED after needle path corrections was smaller for FHM both in- and off-plane (P < 0.05). Final off-plane ND was significantly lower for FHM with no significant difference in final in-plane ND. FHM off-plane punctures were significantly faster. There was no significant difference in CT-scans between both methods.
conclusionUtilizing the PC may improve initial needle positioning and safety especially off-plane. However, better final needle positioning after correction with the greater freedom of movement method may suggest need for disassembly of the cube.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38987424What 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.