Body interventional procedures: which is the best method for CT guidance?
Objectives To compare sequential fluoroscopy guidance with spiral guidance in terms of safety, effectiveness, speed and radiation in interventional whole body procedures. Methods This study was a retrospective analysis of data from the prospective, randomised controlled, multicentre CTNAV2 study. Th...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | European radiology 2020-03, Vol.30 (3), p.1593-1600 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1600 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 1593 |
| container_title | European radiology |
| container_volume | 30 |
| creator | Lustig, Jean-Philippe Aubry, Sébastien Vidal, Chrystelle Pazart, Lionel Moreau-Gaudry, Alexandre Bricault, Ivan |
| description | Objectives
To compare sequential fluoroscopy guidance with spiral guidance in terms of safety, effectiveness, speed and radiation in interventional whole body procedures.
Methods
This study was a retrospective analysis of data from the prospective, randomised controlled, multicentre CTNAV2 study. The present analysis included 385 patients: 247 in the sequential group (SEQ) and 138 in the spiral group (SPI). Safety was assessed by the number of major complications. Effectiveness was measured according to the number of targets reached. Data on procedural time and radiation delivered to patients were also collected.
Results
There was no significant difference between the two groups (SEQ vs SPI) regarding the success rate (99.6% vs 99.3%,
p
= 0.680), procedural time (7 min 40 s ± 5 min 48 s vs 7 min 13 s ± 7 min 33 s,
p
= 0.507), or major complications (2.43% vs 5.8%,
p
= 0.101). Radiation dose to patients was 84% lower in the sequential group (54.8 ± 51.8 mGy cm vs 352.6 ± 404 mGy cm,
p
< 0.0001).
Conclusions
Sequential CT fluoroscopy-guided whole-body interventional procedures seems to be as safe, effective and fast as spiral guidance, while also yielding a significant decrease in the radiation dose to patients.
Key Points
• Sequential CT fluoroscopy and spiral acquisition are comparable in terms of safety, effectiveness and speed.
• Procedural times are comparable despite an increased number of acquisitions in sequential fluoroscopy.
• Radiation dose to patients is 84% lower in sequential fluoroscopy compared with spiral CT. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00330-019-06490-4 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2319494792</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2359143197</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-edf4bcdc6ac74b16498bf115ca13093316a1d5721a40644c0abc56dbc940805e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kD1PwzAURS0EoqXwBxiQJRaWwHPsxDULgoovqRJLmS3HdppU-Sh2Auq_xyUFJAYmD--86_sOQqcELgkAv_IAlEIERESQMgER20NjwmgcEZiyfTQGQacRF4KN0JH3KwAQhPFDNKKE85SzeIye71qzwWXTWfdum65sG1XhtWu1Nb2z_hp_FKUucOlxV1icWd_h2nZFa3DeOjxb4GVfGtVoe3OMDnJVeXuyeyfo9eF-MXuK5i-Pz7PbeaQpT7rImpxl2uhUac4yEnpPs5yQRCtCQ19KUkVMwmOiWDiKaVCZTlKTacFgComlE3Qx5IaWb30oJOvSa1tVqrFt72VMiWCCcREH9PwPump7Fy7cUklwEVAeqHigtGu9dzaXa1fWym0kAbkVLQfRMoiWX6IlC0tnu-g-q635Wfk2GwA6AD6MmqV1v3__E_sJMbOHNA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2359143197</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Body interventional procedures: which is the best method for CT guidance?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Lustig, Jean-Philippe ; Aubry, Sébastien ; Vidal, Chrystelle ; Pazart, Lionel ; Moreau-Gaudry, Alexandre ; Bricault, Ivan</creator><creatorcontrib>Lustig, Jean-Philippe ; Aubry, Sébastien ; Vidal, Chrystelle ; Pazart, Lionel ; Moreau-Gaudry, Alexandre ; Bricault, Ivan</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives
To compare sequential fluoroscopy guidance with spiral guidance in terms of safety, effectiveness, speed and radiation in interventional whole body procedures.
Methods
This study was a retrospective analysis of data from the prospective, randomised controlled, multicentre CTNAV2 study. The present analysis included 385 patients: 247 in the sequential group (SEQ) and 138 in the spiral group (SPI). Safety was assessed by the number of major complications. Effectiveness was measured according to the number of targets reached. Data on procedural time and radiation delivered to patients were also collected.
Results
There was no significant difference between the two groups (SEQ vs SPI) regarding the success rate (99.6% vs 99.3%,
p
= 0.680), procedural time (7 min 40 s ± 5 min 48 s vs 7 min 13 s ± 7 min 33 s,
p
= 0.507), or major complications (2.43% vs 5.8%,
p
= 0.101). Radiation dose to patients was 84% lower in the sequential group (54.8 ± 51.8 mGy cm vs 352.6 ± 404 mGy cm,
p
< 0.0001).
Conclusions
Sequential CT fluoroscopy-guided whole-body interventional procedures seems to be as safe, effective and fast as spiral guidance, while also yielding a significant decrease in the radiation dose to patients.
Key Points
• Sequential CT fluoroscopy and spiral acquisition are comparable in terms of safety, effectiveness and speed.
• Procedural times are comparable despite an increased number of acquisitions in sequential fluoroscopy.
• Radiation dose to patients is 84% lower in sequential fluoroscopy compared with spiral CT.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0938-7994</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-1084</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00330-019-06490-4</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31776742</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Complications ; Computed tomography ; Consent ; Diagnostic Radiology ; Female ; Fluoroscopy ; Fluoroscopy - methods ; Humans ; Imaging ; Internal Medicine ; Interventional ; Interventional Radiology ; Laboratories ; Magnetic resonance imaging ; Male ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Middle Aged ; Neoplasms - diagnosis ; Neuroradiology ; Pacemakers ; Patients ; Prospective Studies ; Radiation ; Radiation Dosage ; Radiography, Interventional - methods ; Radiology ; ROC Curve ; Safety ; Tomography ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods ; Ultrasound</subject><ispartof>European radiology, 2020-03, Vol.30 (3), p.1593-1600</ispartof><rights>European Society of Radiology 2019</rights><rights>European Radiology is a copyright of Springer, (2019). All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-edf4bcdc6ac74b16498bf115ca13093316a1d5721a40644c0abc56dbc940805e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-edf4bcdc6ac74b16498bf115ca13093316a1d5721a40644c0abc56dbc940805e3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8205-3979</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00330-019-06490-4$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00330-019-06490-4$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31776742$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lustig, Jean-Philippe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aubry, Sébastien</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vidal, Chrystelle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pazart, Lionel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moreau-Gaudry, Alexandre</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bricault, Ivan</creatorcontrib><title>Body interventional procedures: which is the best method for CT guidance?</title><title>European radiology</title><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><description>Objectives
To compare sequential fluoroscopy guidance with spiral guidance in terms of safety, effectiveness, speed and radiation in interventional whole body procedures.
Methods
This study was a retrospective analysis of data from the prospective, randomised controlled, multicentre CTNAV2 study. The present analysis included 385 patients: 247 in the sequential group (SEQ) and 138 in the spiral group (SPI). Safety was assessed by the number of major complications. Effectiveness was measured according to the number of targets reached. Data on procedural time and radiation delivered to patients were also collected.
Results
There was no significant difference between the two groups (SEQ vs SPI) regarding the success rate (99.6% vs 99.3%,
p
= 0.680), procedural time (7 min 40 s ± 5 min 48 s vs 7 min 13 s ± 7 min 33 s,
p
= 0.507), or major complications (2.43% vs 5.8%,
p
= 0.101). Radiation dose to patients was 84% lower in the sequential group (54.8 ± 51.8 mGy cm vs 352.6 ± 404 mGy cm,
p
< 0.0001).
Conclusions
Sequential CT fluoroscopy-guided whole-body interventional procedures seems to be as safe, effective and fast as spiral guidance, while also yielding a significant decrease in the radiation dose to patients.
Key Points
• Sequential CT fluoroscopy and spiral acquisition are comparable in terms of safety, effectiveness and speed.
• Procedural times are comparable despite an increased number of acquisitions in sequential fluoroscopy.
• Radiation dose to patients is 84% lower in sequential fluoroscopy compared with spiral CT.</description><subject>Complications</subject><subject>Computed tomography</subject><subject>Consent</subject><subject>Diagnostic Radiology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fluoroscopy</subject><subject>Fluoroscopy - methods</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>Interventional</subject><subject>Interventional Radiology</subject><subject>Laboratories</subject><subject>Magnetic resonance imaging</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Neoplasms - diagnosis</subject><subject>Neuroradiology</subject><subject>Pacemakers</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Radiation</subject><subject>Radiation Dosage</subject><subject>Radiography, Interventional - methods</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>ROC Curve</subject><subject>Safety</subject><subject>Tomography</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</subject><subject>Ultrasound</subject><issn>0938-7994</issn><issn>1432-1084</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kD1PwzAURS0EoqXwBxiQJRaWwHPsxDULgoovqRJLmS3HdppU-Sh2Auq_xyUFJAYmD--86_sOQqcELgkAv_IAlEIERESQMgER20NjwmgcEZiyfTQGQacRF4KN0JH3KwAQhPFDNKKE85SzeIye71qzwWXTWfdum65sG1XhtWu1Nb2z_hp_FKUucOlxV1icWd_h2nZFa3DeOjxb4GVfGtVoe3OMDnJVeXuyeyfo9eF-MXuK5i-Pz7PbeaQpT7rImpxl2uhUac4yEnpPs5yQRCtCQ19KUkVMwmOiWDiKaVCZTlKTacFgComlE3Qx5IaWb30oJOvSa1tVqrFt72VMiWCCcREH9PwPump7Fy7cUklwEVAeqHigtGu9dzaXa1fWym0kAbkVLQfRMoiWX6IlC0tnu-g-q635Wfk2GwA6AD6MmqV1v3__E_sJMbOHNA</recordid><startdate>20200301</startdate><enddate>20200301</enddate><creator>Lustig, Jean-Philippe</creator><creator>Aubry, Sébastien</creator><creator>Vidal, Chrystelle</creator><creator>Pazart, Lionel</creator><creator>Moreau-Gaudry, Alexandre</creator><creator>Bricault, Ivan</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</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>3V.</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8205-3979</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200301</creationdate><title>Body interventional procedures: which is the best method for CT guidance?</title><author>Lustig, Jean-Philippe ; Aubry, Sébastien ; Vidal, Chrystelle ; Pazart, Lionel ; Moreau-Gaudry, Alexandre ; Bricault, Ivan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-edf4bcdc6ac74b16498bf115ca13093316a1d5721a40644c0abc56dbc940805e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Complications</topic><topic>Computed tomography</topic><topic>Consent</topic><topic>Diagnostic Radiology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fluoroscopy</topic><topic>Fluoroscopy - methods</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>Interventional</topic><topic>Interventional Radiology</topic><topic>Laboratories</topic><topic>Magnetic resonance imaging</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Neoplasms - diagnosis</topic><topic>Neuroradiology</topic><topic>Pacemakers</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Radiation</topic><topic>Radiation Dosage</topic><topic>Radiography, Interventional - methods</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>ROC Curve</topic><topic>Safety</topic><topic>Tomography</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</topic><topic>Ultrasound</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lustig, Jean-Philippe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aubry, Sébastien</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vidal, Chrystelle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pazart, Lionel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moreau-Gaudry, Alexandre</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bricault, Ivan</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</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>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>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace 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>ProQuest One Community College</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>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science 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>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>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>European radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lustig, Jean-Philippe</au><au>Aubry, Sébastien</au><au>Vidal, Chrystelle</au><au>Pazart, Lionel</au><au>Moreau-Gaudry, Alexandre</au><au>Bricault, Ivan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Body interventional procedures: which is the best method for CT guidance?</atitle><jtitle>European radiology</jtitle><stitle>Eur Radiol</stitle><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><date>2020-03-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>30</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>1593</spage><epage>1600</epage><pages>1593-1600</pages><issn>0938-7994</issn><eissn>1432-1084</eissn><abstract>Objectives
To compare sequential fluoroscopy guidance with spiral guidance in terms of safety, effectiveness, speed and radiation in interventional whole body procedures.
Methods
This study was a retrospective analysis of data from the prospective, randomised controlled, multicentre CTNAV2 study. The present analysis included 385 patients: 247 in the sequential group (SEQ) and 138 in the spiral group (SPI). Safety was assessed by the number of major complications. Effectiveness was measured according to the number of targets reached. Data on procedural time and radiation delivered to patients were also collected.
Results
There was no significant difference between the two groups (SEQ vs SPI) regarding the success rate (99.6% vs 99.3%,
p
= 0.680), procedural time (7 min 40 s ± 5 min 48 s vs 7 min 13 s ± 7 min 33 s,
p
= 0.507), or major complications (2.43% vs 5.8%,
p
= 0.101). Radiation dose to patients was 84% lower in the sequential group (54.8 ± 51.8 mGy cm vs 352.6 ± 404 mGy cm,
p
< 0.0001).
Conclusions
Sequential CT fluoroscopy-guided whole-body interventional procedures seems to be as safe, effective and fast as spiral guidance, while also yielding a significant decrease in the radiation dose to patients.
Key Points
• Sequential CT fluoroscopy and spiral acquisition are comparable in terms of safety, effectiveness and speed.
• Procedural times are comparable despite an increased number of acquisitions in sequential fluoroscopy.
• Radiation dose to patients is 84% lower in sequential fluoroscopy compared with spiral CT.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>31776742</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00330-019-06490-4</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8205-3979</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0938-7994 |
| ispartof | European radiology, 2020-03, Vol.30 (3), p.1593-1600 |
| issn | 0938-7994 1432-1084 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2319494792 |
| source | MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
| subjects | Complications Computed tomography Consent Diagnostic Radiology Female Fluoroscopy Fluoroscopy - methods Humans Imaging Internal Medicine Interventional Interventional Radiology Laboratories Magnetic resonance imaging Male Medicine Medicine & Public Health Middle Aged Neoplasms - diagnosis Neuroradiology Pacemakers Patients Prospective Studies Radiation Radiation Dosage Radiography, Interventional - methods Radiology ROC Curve Safety Tomography Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods Ultrasound |
| title | Body interventional procedures: which is the best method for CT guidance? |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T06%3A09%3A08IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Body%20interventional%20procedures:%20which%20is%20the%20best%20method%20for%20CT%20guidance?&rft.jtitle=European%20radiology&rft.au=Lustig,%20Jean-Philippe&rft.date=2020-03-01&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=1593&rft.epage=1600&rft.pages=1593-1600&rft.issn=0938-7994&rft.eissn=1432-1084&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00330-019-06490-4&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2359143197%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2359143197&rft_id=info:pmid/31776742&rfr_iscdi=true |