ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Fine needle assisted puncture positioning technique for CT-guided percutaneous interventions.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study evaluated the feasibility and safety of a fine-needle-assisted, two-step puncture technique developed to improve accuracy in CT-guided percutaneous interventions at challenging target locations, compared with conventional approaches. Methods: In this retrospective study, CT-guided procedures-including biopsy, preoperative localization, microwave ablation, or percutaneous vertebroplasty-were performed on 40 patients with challenging target locations. In the fine-needle-assisted group, a 20/22-gauge initial fine needle was positioned near the target under CT guidance to serve as a guide. The secondary needle -such as a coaxial biopsy needle, microwave antenna, or bone puncture needle-was then introduced along the same trajectory and angle as the fine needle. The conventional approach involved a direct, stepwise needle insertion toward the lesion in 20 patients with challenging target locations. The number of repositioning attempts for the coaxial needle, microwave ablation antenna, and bone puncture needle, as well as the puncture time, were compared between the two groups. Puncture success rates and complications were recorded. Results: In the fine-needle-assisted group, initial fine-needle placement was successful in all 20 cases, allowing subsequent puncture of the target lesions. In the conventional approach group, one puncture failure was recorded. No major complications-such as massive pneumothorax, significant hemorrhage, or injury to major vessels or nerves-occurred in either group. The fine needle assisted group required fewer repositioning attempts and shorter puncture times than the conventional approach group, 0.9 ± 0.7 vs. 2.2 ± 1.3 times(p < 0.05) and 12.05 ± 2.86 vs. 14.95 ± 3.32 minutes(p < 0.05), respectively. Conclusion: The fine-needle-assisted puncture technique offers a safe, feasible, and effective means of improving precision in CT-guided percutaneous procedures at challenging target locations compared with conventional approaches.
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.