Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41523359›Full record

ReviewThe Indian journal of radiology & imaging2026

Image-Guided Percutaneous Spinal Biopsy: CT or C-Arm Guidance?

Sonal Saran, Nishith Kumar, Simran Suri, Tankeshwar Boruah, Geetika Khanna, Sonam Kaur Walia, Dharmendra Kumar Singh

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

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

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Sonal SaranDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India.ORCID 0000-0002-4912-1415
Nishith KumarDepartment of Radiodiagnosis and Interventional Radiology, Vardhman Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, India.
Simran SuriSGT Medical College, Hospital, and Research Institute, Gurugram, Haryana, India.
Tankeshwar BoruahCentral Institute of Orthopaedics, Vardhman Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, India.
Geetika KhannaDepartment of Pathology, Vardhman Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, India.
Sonam Kaur WaliaDepartment of Radiodiagnosis, Atal Bihari Vajpayee Institute of Medical Sciences and Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi, India.
Dharmendra Kumar SinghDepartment of Radiodiagnosis and Interventional Radiology, Vardhman Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, India.ORCID 0000-0001-8706-7387

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

C-arm guided spinal biopsyCT-guided spinal biopsytranspedicular vertebral biopsyvertebral biopsy

Identifiers

PMID41523359
PMCPMC12788941

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.