ReviewThe Indian journal of radiology & imaging2026
Image-Guided Percutaneous Spinal Biopsy: CT or C-Arm Guidance?
Review in The Indian journal of radiology & imaging, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Image-guided percutaneous spinal biopsy is a minimally invasive procedure for histopathological confirmation and/or microbiological assessment of spinal lesions. When considering image-guided percutaneous spinal biopsy, both computed tomography (CT) and C-arm guidance have their advantages and specific applications. CT provides high-resolution cross-sectional images, allowing for precise localization of lesions and thus, effective for biopsy of spinal lesions in complex anatomical locations (e.g., cervical and upper dorsal spine). However, patients may receive higher doses of radiation than those with C-arm. C-arm guidance offers continuous imaging, which can enhance needle placement accuracy and is typically associated with lower radiation exposure than CT. However, C-arm provides less detailed images compared with CT, especially for certain lesions, and can be more challenging for accessing certain spinal areas, especially in the presence of anatomical variations. The choice between CT and C-arm guidance often depends on the specific clinical scenario, the location of the lesion, and the preferences of the clinician. For lesions that are easily accessible (lumbar, lower dorsal spine) and require real-time monitoring, C-arm may be preferred. For deeper or more complex lesions, CT guidance often provides better visualization and accuracy. Ultimately, the decision should be tailored to each patient's needs and the expertise of the clinician. This review article aims to compare the use of CT and C-arm guidance in percutaneous spinal biopsy, focusing on their technical aspects, diagnostic accuracy, and safety profiles.
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.