Frame-based stereotactic biopsies using an intraoperative MR-scanner are as safe and effective as conventional stereotactic procedures
Frame-based stereotactic biopsy (FBSB) is a minimally-invasive and effective procedure for the diagnosis of brain lesions and will likely gain clinical importance. Since FBSB procedures comprise a variety of imaging and sampling methods, it is necessary to compare the safety and effectiveness of ind...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2018-10, Vol.13 (10), p.e0205772-e0205772 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e0205772 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 10 |
| container_start_page | e0205772 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 13 |
| creator | Neumann, Jan-Oliver Campos, Benito Younes, Bilal Jakobs, Martin Jungk, Christine Beynon, Christopher Deimling, Andreas von Unterberg, Andreas Kiening, Karl |
| description | Frame-based stereotactic biopsy (FBSB) is a minimally-invasive and effective procedure for the diagnosis of brain lesions and will likely gain clinical importance. Since FBSB procedures comprise a variety of imaging and sampling methods, it is necessary to compare the safety and effectiveness of individual techniques.
To assess the safety and effectiveness of FBSB using 1.5T iMRI as a one-stop procedure under general anesthesia without intraoperative histological examination.
In this single-center, retrospective analysis, 500 consecutive FBSBs using iMRI were compared to a historic control of 100 biopsies with traditional workflows (computed tomography (CT) with MRI image fusion). All procedures were performed under general anesthesia. Data on surgical procedures, pre- and postoperative neurologic patient status, complications and diagnostic yield were extracted from clinical records.
Complication rates and diagnostic yield showed no significant differences between both groups. Mortality was 0.6%, 95% CI = [0.12%, 1.74%], in the iMRI and 0.0% [0.00%, 3.62%], in the control group with a morbidity of 5.4% [3.6%, 7.8%] and 6.0% [2.2%, 12.6%] and a diagnostic yield of 96.8% [94.9%, 98.2%] and 96.0% [90.1%, 98.9%]. Mean procedure duration was 124 [121, 127] minutes using iMRI and 112 [106, 118] minutes in the control group.
FBSB using 1.5T iMRI under general anesthesia is a safe and effective procedure and is equivalent to traditional stereotactic workflows with respect to complication rate and diagnostic yield. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0205772 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2124452817</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A559617353</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_3337955d20e24adab2ad2cad82e05301</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A559617353</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-5b42697270366d290814b9cdfa76104f2139f922aad5297b9dfee384f97d379a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk9tu1DAQhiMEoqXwBggiISG4yOLYiRPfIFUVhZWKKpXDrTWxJ7teZe3UTlbwAjw33kOrDeoFyoWjyTf_zPzOJMnLnMxyVuUfVm70FrpZ7yzOCCVlVdFHyWkuGM04Jezx0ftJ8iyEFSElqzl_mpwwwkpKOD9N_lx6WGPWQECdhgE9ugHUYFTaGNcHgyEdg7GLFGxq7ODB9ehhMBtMv95kQYG16FPwmEJIA7TxtDrFtkW1g2JUObtBOxgXu52W6L1TqEeP4XnypIUu4IvDeZb8uPz0_eJLdnX9eX5xfpUpLuiQlU1BuahoRRjnmgpS50UjlG6h4jkpWpoz0QpKAXRJRdUI3SKyumhFpVklgJ0lr_e6feeCPFgYJM1pUZS0zqtIzPeEdrCSvTdr8L-lAyN3AecXEnxsvkPJWNQsS00J0gI0NBQ0VaBritFpkketj4dqY7NGrXBrYDcRnX6xZikXbiN5LmrBSRR4dxDw7nbEMMi1CQq7Diy6cdd3nLMu6BZ98w_68HQHagFxAGNbF-uqrag8L0vBI1KySM0eoOKjcW3idWJrYnyS8H6SEJkBfw0LGEOQ8283_89e_5yyb4_YJUI3LIPrxu3PFKZgsQeVdyF4bO9NzoncrsudG3K7LvKwLjHt1fEF3Sfd7Qf7C9qpER8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2124452817</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Frame-based stereotactic biopsies using an intraoperative MR-scanner are as safe and effective as conventional stereotactic procedures</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Neumann, Jan-Oliver ; Campos, Benito ; Younes, Bilal ; Jakobs, Martin ; Jungk, Christine ; Beynon, Christopher ; Deimling, Andreas von ; Unterberg, Andreas ; Kiening, Karl</creator><contributor>Fritz, Jan</contributor><creatorcontrib>Neumann, Jan-Oliver ; Campos, Benito ; Younes, Bilal ; Jakobs, Martin ; Jungk, Christine ; Beynon, Christopher ; Deimling, Andreas von ; Unterberg, Andreas ; Kiening, Karl ; Fritz, Jan</creatorcontrib><description>Frame-based stereotactic biopsy (FBSB) is a minimally-invasive and effective procedure for the diagnosis of brain lesions and will likely gain clinical importance. Since FBSB procedures comprise a variety of imaging and sampling methods, it is necessary to compare the safety and effectiveness of individual techniques.
To assess the safety and effectiveness of FBSB using 1.5T iMRI as a one-stop procedure under general anesthesia without intraoperative histological examination.
In this single-center, retrospective analysis, 500 consecutive FBSBs using iMRI were compared to a historic control of 100 biopsies with traditional workflows (computed tomography (CT) with MRI image fusion). All procedures were performed under general anesthesia. Data on surgical procedures, pre- and postoperative neurologic patient status, complications and diagnostic yield were extracted from clinical records.
Complication rates and diagnostic yield showed no significant differences between both groups. Mortality was 0.6%, 95% CI = [0.12%, 1.74%], in the iMRI and 0.0% [0.00%, 3.62%], in the control group with a morbidity of 5.4% [3.6%, 7.8%] and 6.0% [2.2%, 12.6%] and a diagnostic yield of 96.8% [94.9%, 98.2%] and 96.0% [90.1%, 98.9%]. Mean procedure duration was 124 [121, 127] minutes using iMRI and 112 [106, 118] minutes in the control group.
FBSB using 1.5T iMRI under general anesthesia is a safe and effective procedure and is equivalent to traditional stereotactic workflows with respect to complication rate and diagnostic yield.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0205772</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30352066</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Anesthesia ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Biopsy ; Brain ; Brain - diagnostic imaging ; Brain - pathology ; Brain cancer ; Brain diseases ; Brain Neoplasms - diagnosis ; Brain Neoplasms - pathology ; Child ; Child, Preschool ; Complications ; Computed tomography ; Computer vision ; Diagnosis ; Diagnostic systems ; Female ; Humans ; Image processing ; Image-Guided Biopsy - adverse effects ; Image-Guided Biopsy - methods ; Infant ; Intraoperative Period ; Lesions ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Male ; Medical imaging ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Middle Aged ; Morbidity ; Neuroimaging ; Neurological complications ; Neuropathology ; Neurosurgery ; NMR ; Nuclear magnetic resonance ; Operative Time ; Patients ; People and Places ; Physical Sciences ; Postoperative Complications - epidemiology ; Postoperative Complications - etiology ; Postoperative Period ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Retrospective Studies ; Safety ; Sampling methods ; Scanners ; Stereotaxic Techniques - adverse effects ; Surgeons ; Surgery ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - adverse effects ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2018-10, Vol.13 (10), p.e0205772-e0205772</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2018 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2018 Neumann et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2018 Neumann et al 2018 Neumann et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-5b42697270366d290814b9cdfa76104f2139f922aad5297b9dfee384f97d379a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-5b42697270366d290814b9cdfa76104f2139f922aad5297b9dfee384f97d379a3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-0705-471X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6198960/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6198960/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2102,2928,23866,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30352066$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Fritz, Jan</contributor><creatorcontrib>Neumann, Jan-Oliver</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Campos, Benito</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Younes, Bilal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jakobs, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jungk, Christine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beynon, Christopher</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deimling, Andreas von</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Unterberg, Andreas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kiening, Karl</creatorcontrib><title>Frame-based stereotactic biopsies using an intraoperative MR-scanner are as safe and effective as conventional stereotactic procedures</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Frame-based stereotactic biopsy (FBSB) is a minimally-invasive and effective procedure for the diagnosis of brain lesions and will likely gain clinical importance. Since FBSB procedures comprise a variety of imaging and sampling methods, it is necessary to compare the safety and effectiveness of individual techniques.
To assess the safety and effectiveness of FBSB using 1.5T iMRI as a one-stop procedure under general anesthesia without intraoperative histological examination.
In this single-center, retrospective analysis, 500 consecutive FBSBs using iMRI were compared to a historic control of 100 biopsies with traditional workflows (computed tomography (CT) with MRI image fusion). All procedures were performed under general anesthesia. Data on surgical procedures, pre- and postoperative neurologic patient status, complications and diagnostic yield were extracted from clinical records.
Complication rates and diagnostic yield showed no significant differences between both groups. Mortality was 0.6%, 95% CI = [0.12%, 1.74%], in the iMRI and 0.0% [0.00%, 3.62%], in the control group with a morbidity of 5.4% [3.6%, 7.8%] and 6.0% [2.2%, 12.6%] and a diagnostic yield of 96.8% [94.9%, 98.2%] and 96.0% [90.1%, 98.9%]. Mean procedure duration was 124 [121, 127] minutes using iMRI and 112 [106, 118] minutes in the control group.
FBSB using 1.5T iMRI under general anesthesia is a safe and effective procedure and is equivalent to traditional stereotactic workflows with respect to complication rate and diagnostic yield.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Anesthesia</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Biopsy</subject><subject>Brain</subject><subject>Brain - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Brain - pathology</subject><subject>Brain cancer</subject><subject>Brain diseases</subject><subject>Brain Neoplasms - diagnosis</subject><subject>Brain Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Child, Preschool</subject><subject>Complications</subject><subject>Computed tomography</subject><subject>Computer vision</subject><subject>Diagnosis</subject><subject>Diagnostic systems</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Image processing</subject><subject>Image-Guided Biopsy - adverse effects</subject><subject>Image-Guided Biopsy - methods</subject><subject>Infant</subject><subject>Intraoperative Period</subject><subject>Lesions</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical imaging</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Morbidity</subject><subject>Neuroimaging</subject><subject>Neurological complications</subject><subject>Neuropathology</subject><subject>Neurosurgery</subject><subject>NMR</subject><subject>Nuclear magnetic resonance</subject><subject>Operative Time</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>People and Places</subject><subject>Physical Sciences</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - epidemiology</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - etiology</subject><subject>Postoperative Period</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Safety</subject><subject>Sampling methods</subject><subject>Scanners</subject><subject>Stereotaxic Techniques - adverse effects</subject><subject>Surgeons</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - adverse effects</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk9tu1DAQhiMEoqXwBggiISG4yOLYiRPfIFUVhZWKKpXDrTWxJ7teZe3UTlbwAjw33kOrDeoFyoWjyTf_zPzOJMnLnMxyVuUfVm70FrpZ7yzOCCVlVdFHyWkuGM04Jezx0ftJ8iyEFSElqzl_mpwwwkpKOD9N_lx6WGPWQECdhgE9ugHUYFTaGNcHgyEdg7GLFGxq7ODB9ehhMBtMv95kQYG16FPwmEJIA7TxtDrFtkW1g2JUObtBOxgXu52W6L1TqEeP4XnypIUu4IvDeZb8uPz0_eJLdnX9eX5xfpUpLuiQlU1BuahoRRjnmgpS50UjlG6h4jkpWpoz0QpKAXRJRdUI3SKyumhFpVklgJ0lr_e6feeCPFgYJM1pUZS0zqtIzPeEdrCSvTdr8L-lAyN3AecXEnxsvkPJWNQsS00J0gI0NBQ0VaBritFpkketj4dqY7NGrXBrYDcRnX6xZikXbiN5LmrBSRR4dxDw7nbEMMi1CQq7Diy6cdd3nLMu6BZ98w_68HQHagFxAGNbF-uqrag8L0vBI1KySM0eoOKjcW3idWJrYnyS8H6SEJkBfw0LGEOQ8283_89e_5yyb4_YJUI3LIPrxu3PFKZgsQeVdyF4bO9NzoncrsudG3K7LvKwLjHt1fEF3Sfd7Qf7C9qpER8</recordid><startdate>20181023</startdate><enddate>20181023</enddate><creator>Neumann, Jan-Oliver</creator><creator>Campos, Benito</creator><creator>Younes, Bilal</creator><creator>Jakobs, Martin</creator><creator>Jungk, Christine</creator><creator>Beynon, Christopher</creator><creator>Deimling, Andreas von</creator><creator>Unterberg, Andreas</creator><creator>Kiening, Karl</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0705-471X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20181023</creationdate><title>Frame-based stereotactic biopsies using an intraoperative MR-scanner are as safe and effective as conventional stereotactic procedures</title><author>Neumann, Jan-Oliver ; Campos, Benito ; Younes, Bilal ; Jakobs, Martin ; Jungk, Christine ; Beynon, Christopher ; Deimling, Andreas von ; Unterberg, Andreas ; Kiening, Karl</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-5b42697270366d290814b9cdfa76104f2139f922aad5297b9dfee384f97d379a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Anesthesia</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Biopsy</topic><topic>Brain</topic><topic>Brain - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Brain - pathology</topic><topic>Brain cancer</topic><topic>Brain diseases</topic><topic>Brain Neoplasms - diagnosis</topic><topic>Brain Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Child, Preschool</topic><topic>Complications</topic><topic>Computed tomography</topic><topic>Computer vision</topic><topic>Diagnosis</topic><topic>Diagnostic systems</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Image processing</topic><topic>Image-Guided Biopsy - adverse effects</topic><topic>Image-Guided Biopsy - methods</topic><topic>Infant</topic><topic>Intraoperative Period</topic><topic>Lesions</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical imaging</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Morbidity</topic><topic>Neuroimaging</topic><topic>Neurological complications</topic><topic>Neuropathology</topic><topic>Neurosurgery</topic><topic>NMR</topic><topic>Nuclear magnetic resonance</topic><topic>Operative Time</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>People and Places</topic><topic>Physical Sciences</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - epidemiology</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - etiology</topic><topic>Postoperative Period</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Safety</topic><topic>Sampling methods</topic><topic>Scanners</topic><topic>Stereotaxic Techniques - adverse effects</topic><topic>Surgeons</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - adverse effects</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Neumann, Jan-Oliver</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Campos, Benito</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Younes, Bilal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jakobs, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jungk, Christine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beynon, Christopher</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deimling, Andreas von</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Unterberg, Andreas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kiening, Karl</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Neumann, Jan-Oliver</au><au>Campos, Benito</au><au>Younes, Bilal</au><au>Jakobs, Martin</au><au>Jungk, Christine</au><au>Beynon, Christopher</au><au>Deimling, Andreas von</au><au>Unterberg, Andreas</au><au>Kiening, Karl</au><au>Fritz, Jan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Frame-based stereotactic biopsies using an intraoperative MR-scanner are as safe and effective as conventional stereotactic procedures</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2018-10-23</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>13</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>e0205772</spage><epage>e0205772</epage><pages>e0205772-e0205772</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Frame-based stereotactic biopsy (FBSB) is a minimally-invasive and effective procedure for the diagnosis of brain lesions and will likely gain clinical importance. Since FBSB procedures comprise a variety of imaging and sampling methods, it is necessary to compare the safety and effectiveness of individual techniques.
To assess the safety and effectiveness of FBSB using 1.5T iMRI as a one-stop procedure under general anesthesia without intraoperative histological examination.
In this single-center, retrospective analysis, 500 consecutive FBSBs using iMRI were compared to a historic control of 100 biopsies with traditional workflows (computed tomography (CT) with MRI image fusion). All procedures were performed under general anesthesia. Data on surgical procedures, pre- and postoperative neurologic patient status, complications and diagnostic yield were extracted from clinical records.
Complication rates and diagnostic yield showed no significant differences between both groups. Mortality was 0.6%, 95% CI = [0.12%, 1.74%], in the iMRI and 0.0% [0.00%, 3.62%], in the control group with a morbidity of 5.4% [3.6%, 7.8%] and 6.0% [2.2%, 12.6%] and a diagnostic yield of 96.8% [94.9%, 98.2%] and 96.0% [90.1%, 98.9%]. Mean procedure duration was 124 [121, 127] minutes using iMRI and 112 [106, 118] minutes in the control group.
FBSB using 1.5T iMRI under general anesthesia is a safe and effective procedure and is equivalent to traditional stereotactic workflows with respect to complication rate and diagnostic yield.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>30352066</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0205772</doi><tpages>e0205772</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0705-471X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2018-10, Vol.13 (10), p.e0205772-e0205772 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2124452817 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
| subjects | Adolescent Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Anesthesia Biology and Life Sciences Biopsy Brain Brain - diagnostic imaging Brain - pathology Brain cancer Brain diseases Brain Neoplasms - diagnosis Brain Neoplasms - pathology Child Child, Preschool Complications Computed tomography Computer vision Diagnosis Diagnostic systems Female Humans Image processing Image-Guided Biopsy - adverse effects Image-Guided Biopsy - methods Infant Intraoperative Period Lesions Magnetic Resonance Imaging Male Medical imaging Medicine and Health Sciences Middle Aged Morbidity Neuroimaging Neurological complications Neuropathology Neurosurgery NMR Nuclear magnetic resonance Operative Time Patients People and Places Physical Sciences Postoperative Complications - epidemiology Postoperative Complications - etiology Postoperative Period Research and Analysis Methods Retrospective Studies Safety Sampling methods Scanners Stereotaxic Techniques - adverse effects Surgeons Surgery Tomography, X-Ray Computed - adverse effects Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods Young Adult |
| title | Frame-based stereotactic biopsies using an intraoperative MR-scanner are as safe and effective as conventional stereotactic procedures |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-19T10%3A07%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Frame-based%20stereotactic%20biopsies%20using%20an%20intraoperative%20MR-scanner%20are%20as%20safe%20and%20effective%20as%20conventional%20stereotactic%20procedures&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Neumann,%20Jan-Oliver&rft.date=2018-10-23&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=e0205772&rft.epage=e0205772&rft.pages=e0205772-e0205772&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0205772&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA559617353%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2124452817&rft_id=info:pmid/30352066&rft_galeid=A559617353&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_3337955d20e24adab2ad2cad82e05301&rfr_iscdi=true |