Freehand Biopsy Guided by Electromagnetic Needle Tracking: A Phantom Study

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Ziel: Bewertung der Genauigkeit und des Zeitaufwands bei einer Biopsie mittels elektromagnetischen Nadeltrackings an einem Phantom im Vergleich zur Standardtechnik der ultraschallgestützten Biopsie mit angeschlossener Lenkeinrichtung. Darüber hinaus die Bewertung der Biopsie außerhalb der Ebene gestützt duch Nadeltracking.

Material und Methoden: An einem Phantom wurden drei verschiedene Biopsieserien durchgeführt: eine, bei der die Lenkeinrichtung an den Meßwandler ohne Nadeltracking angeschlossen ist und somit der Standardtechnik der ultraschallgestützten Biopsie ähnelt (Serie 1), eine Freihand innerhalb der Scan-Ebene mittels elektromagnetischen Nadeltrackings (Serie 2) und eine Freihand außerhalb der Scan-Ebene mittels elektromagnetischen Nadeltrackings (Serie 3). Das Phantom enthielt Kugeln von 1 cm Durchmesser, die mit roter Farbe gefüllt waren. Jede Perforation der Phantomoberfläche wurde als eine Biopsie gewertet.

Ergebnisse: 180 Biopsien wurden durchgeführt. Die mittlere Zeitdauer pro Biopsie betrug in Serie eins 19,9 s (SD: 9,1), in Serie zwei 34,1 s (SD 17,9) und in Serie drei 34,4 s (SD: 14,0). Die Erfolgsrate betrug insgesamt: 88 % für die nadelgeführte Biopsie in der Ebene, 87 % für das Nadeltracking in der Ebene und 92 % für das Nadeltracking außerhalb der Ebene. Zwischen den Methoden konnte kein statistisch signifikanter Unterschied ausgemacht werden.

Schlussfolgerung: Die Nadelnavigation ist ein möglicherweise wertvolles Hilfsmittel der bildgestützten Biopsie mit einer ähnlichen Erfolgsquote im Vergleich zur konventionellen bildgestützten Biopsie. Darüber hinaus ermöglicht sie die bildgestützte Biopsie außerhalb der Ebene.

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the overall accuracy and time spent on biopsy guided by electromagnetic needle tracking in a phantom compared with the standard technique of US-guided biopsy with an attached steering device. Furthermore, to evaluate off-plane biopsy guided by needle tracking.

Materials and Methods: Three different series of biopsy were performed in a phantom: one with a steering device attached to the transducer without needle tracking, simulating the standard ultrasound-guided biopsy procedure (series 1), one freehand in the scan plane using electromagnetic needle tracking (series 2), and one freehand off-the-scan plane using electromagnetic needle tracking (series 3). The phantom contained spheres of 1 cm in diameter filled with red dye. Each time of the phantom surface was perforated counted as an attempt.

Results: 180 biopsies were performed. The mean time spent on each biopsy in series one was 19.9 seconds (SD: 9.1), in series two 34.1 seconds (SD: 17.9) and in series three 34.4 seconds (SD: 14.0). The overall rate of success was: 88 % for in-plane needle-guided biopsy, 87 % for in-plane needle tracking, and 92 % for off-plane needle tracking. No statistically significant difference between the methods was shown.

Conclusion: Needle navigation is a potentially valuable tool for image-guided biopsy with an equal rate of success compared with conventional image-guided biopsy. Furthermore, it enables off-plane image-guided biopsy.

• References

• 1 Crocetti L, Lencioni R, Debeni S et al. Targeting liver lesions for radiofrequency ablation: an experimental feasibility study using a CT-US fusion imaging system. Invest Radiol 2008; 43: 33-39
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Ewertsen C, Ellegaard K, Boesen M et al. Comparison of two co-registration methods for real-time ultrasonography fused with MRI: a phantom study. Ultraschall in Med 2010; 31: 296-301
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Ewertsen C, Grossjohann HS, Nielsen KR et al. Biopsy guided by real-time sonography fused with MRI: a phantom study. Am J Roentgenol 2008; 190: 1671-1674
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Ewertsen C, Henriksen BM, Torp-Pedersen S et al. Characterization by biopsy or CEUS of liver lesions guided by image fusion between ultrasonography and CT, PET/CT or MRI. Ultraschall in Med 2011; 32: 191-197
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Klauser AS, De Zordo T, Feuchtner GM et al. Fusion of real-time US with CT images to guide sacroiliac joint injection in vitro and in vivo. Radiology 2010; 256: 547-553
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Minami Y, Chung H, Kudo M et al. Radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma: value of virtual CT sonography with magnetic navigation. Am J Roentgenol 2008; 190: W335-W341
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Singh AK, Kruecker J, Xu S et al. Initial clinical experience with real-time transrectal ultrasonography-magnetic resonance imaging fusion-guided prostate biopsy. BJU Int 2008; 101: 841-845
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Krucker J, Xu S, Glossop N et al. Electromagnetic tracking for thermal ablation and biopsy guidance: clinical evaluation of spatial accuracy. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2007; 18: 1141-1150
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Venkatesan AM, Kadoury S, Abi-Jaoudeh N et al. Real-time FDG PET Guidance during Biopsies and Radiofrequency Ablation Using Multimodality Fusion with Electromagnetic Navigation. Radiology 2011; 260: 848-856
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Kliewer MA, Sheafor DH, Paulson EK et al. Percutaneous liver biopsy: a cost-benefit analysis comparing sonographic and CT guidance. Am J Roentgenol 1999; 173: 1199-1202
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Tombesi P, Nielsen I, Tassinari D et al. Transthoracic ultrasonography-guided core needle biopsy of pleural-based lung lesions: prospective randomized comparison between a Tru-cut-type needle and a modified Menghini-type needle. Ultraschall in Med 2009; 30: 390-395
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Piscaglia F, Nolsoe C, Dietrich CF et al. The EFSUMB Guidelines and Recommendations on the Clinical Practice of Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS): Update 2011 on non-hepatic applications. Ultraschall in Med 2011;
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Seitz K, Bernatik T, Strobel D et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for the characterization of focal liver lesions in clinical practice (DEGUM Multicenter Trial): CEUS vs. MRI – a prospective comparison in 269 patients.. Ultraschall in Med 2010; 31: 492-499
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Piscaglia F, Venturi A, Mancini M et al. Diagnostic features of real-time contrast-enhanced ultrasound in focal nodular hyperplasia of the liver. Ultraschall in Med 2010; 31: 276-282
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Laghi F, Catalano O, Maresca M et al. Indeterminate, subcentimetric focal liver lesions in cancer patients: additional role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Ultraschall in Med 2010; 31: 283-288
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Buckner CA, Venkatesan A, Locklin JK et al. Real-time sonography with electromagnetic tracking navigation for biopsy of a hepatic neoplasm seen only on arterial phase computed tomography. J Ultrasound Med 2011; 30: 253-256
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Frieser M, Lindner A, Meyer S et al. Spectrum and bleeding complications of sonographically guided interventions of the liver and pancreas. Ultraschall in Med 2009; 30: 168-174
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar