ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2025
Comparison of different new ultrasonic technologies in resection assessment of neurosurgery.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2025. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: New ultrasound (US) techniques, such as contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and shear wave elastography (SWE), are being used to identify artifacts, guide the interventions and evaluate the extent of resection, as it is difficult for gray-scale ultrasound to distinguish the artifacts in intraoperative ultrasound (IOUS). However, to date, no comparative study has been conducted on the role of several new US technologies in guiding brain tumor resection. Thus, this study sought to compare the roles of various new US technologies in guiding brain tumor resection to find a convenient and useful guiding technology for brain tumor resection. Methods: From July 2022 to July 2023, 64 brain tumor patients (33 men and 31 women), with ages ranging from 26 to 78 years (53.2±11.6 years), were included in the study. Before surgery, a planned resection (pRS) was determined for all of the included patients by a multidisciplinary neuro-oncology team. All patients underwent microsurgical resection of the lesion. After the craniotomy and before the dural opening, ultrasonic techniques, including B-mode, micro-flow imaging (MFI), CEUS, and SWE, were used to evaluate the features of the brain tumor and its surrounding structure. Then, those ultrasonic techniques were applied to each patient to confirm the microsurgical margin achieving the pRS at the end of the resection. Next, 3 days after surgery, a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan was performed on each patient as the reference standard. The agreement between B-mode, color Doppler flow imaging (CDFI), MFI, CEUS, SWE, and MRI was measured by Fleiss' kappa agreement. Results: In the evaluation of the surgical resection edges, all the included US technologies showed substantial agreement compared to the MRI results. The Kappa values were 0.717, 0.751, 0.714, and 0.892 for B-mode, MFI, SWE, and CEUS, respectively. CEUS and MRI showed the best diagnostic consistency. CEUS had the highest sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis (77.78%, 100%, 100%, and 86.05%, respectively), followed by MFI. B-mode and SWE showed similar accuracy in detecting tumor residue. Conclusions: US is a convenient and cost-effective method for guiding the procedure and evaluating the extent of resection in neurosurgery. CEUS has the highest diagnostic accuracy for residual lesions among the new US technologies. Thus, MFI can be recommended as a technique for guiding and evaluating residues in neurosurgery in addition to CEUS.
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.