Suppr超能文献

CT 引导经皮肺活检:在 60 例连续患者中,常规 CT 透视与电磁导航系统 CT 透视的比较。

CT-guided percutaneous lung biopsy: comparison of conventional CT fluoroscopy to CT fluoroscopy with electromagnetic navigation system in 60 consecutive patients.

机构信息

Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Warren Alpert School of Medicine, Brown University, Providence, RI 02903, United States.

出版信息

Eur J Radiol. 2011 Aug;79(2):e133-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.05.030. Epub 2011 Jun 15.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To determine if use of an electromagnetic navigation system (EMN) decreases radiation dose and procedure time of CT fluoroscopy guided lung biopsy in lesions smaller than 2.5 cm.

MATERIALS/METHODS: 86 consecutive patients with small lung masses (<2.5 cm) were approached. 60 consented and were randomized to undergo biopsy with CT fluoroscopy (CTF) (34 patients) or EMN (26 patients). Technical failure required conversion to CTF in 8/26 EMN patients; 18 patients completed biopsy with EMN. Numerous biopsy parameters were compared as described below.

RESULTS

Average fluoroscopy time using CTF was 28.2s compared to 35.0 s for EMN (p=0.1). Average radiation dose was 117 mGy using CTF and 123 mGy for EMN (p=0.7). Average number of needle repositions was 3.7 for CTF and 4.4 for EMN (p=0.4). Average procedure time was 15 min for CTF and 20 min for EMN (p=0.01). There were 7 pneumothoracesin the CTF group and 6 pneumothoraces in the EMN group (p=0.7). One pneumothorax in the CTF group and 3 pneumothoraces in the EMN group required chest tube placement (p=0.1). One pneumothorax patient in each group required hospital admission. Diagnostic specimens were obtained in 31/34 patients in the CTF group and 22/26 patients in the EMN group (p=0.4).

CONCLUSIONS

EMN was not statistically different than CTF for fluoroscopy time, radiation dose, number of needle repositions, incidence of pneumothorax, need for chest tube, or diagnostic yield. Procedure time was increased with EMN.

摘要

目的

确定电磁导航系统(EMN)是否能降低 CT 透视引导下 2.5cm 以下肺部病变活检的辐射剂量和操作时间。

材料/方法:共纳入 86 例肺部小结节(<2.5cm)患者。60 例患者同意并随机分为 CT 透视(CTF)引导活检组(34 例)和 EMN 引导活检组(26 例)。8 例 EMN 患者因技术失败而转为 CTF 引导活检,18 例患者完成 EMN 引导活检。以下为比较的各种活检参数。

结果

CTF 透视时间平均为 28.2s,EMN 为 35.0s(p=0.1)。CTF 平均辐射剂量为 117mGy,EMN 为 123mGy(p=0.7)。CTF 平均需要重新定位 3.7 次,EMN 为 4.4 次(p=0.4)。CTF 平均操作时间为 15min,EMN 为 20min(p=0.01)。CTF 组发生 7 例气胸,EMN 组发生 6 例气胸(p=0.7)。CTF 组有 1 例气胸需要放置胸腔引流管,EMN 组有 3 例气胸需要放置胸腔引流管(p=0.1)。两组各有 1 例气胸患者需要住院治疗。CTF 组 31/34 例和 EMN 组 22/26 例获得了诊断性标本(p=0.4)。

结论

EMN 与 CTF 相比,在透视时间、辐射剂量、针重定位次数、气胸发生率、胸腔引流管放置需求、诊断性标本获取率方面无统计学差异。但 EMN 操作时间增加。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验