From the Department of Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2020 Mar;41(3):387-392. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A6428. Epub 2020 Feb 6.
There is scarcity of data on the comparative efficacy between bone biopsy drill systems across various types of bone lesions. Our aim was to investigate differences in diagnostic yield, scanning time, and radiation dose between manual and battery-powered bone biopsy systems in CT-guided biopsies of lytic, sclerotic, and infectious bone lesions.
This was a retrospective single-center institutional review board-approved study. A total of 585 CT-guided core needle biopsies were performed at 1 institution from May 2010 to February 2019. Classification of bone lesions, location, bone biopsy system, suspected origin of primary disease, final pathologic diagnosis, diagnostic yield, presence of crush artifacts, radiation dose, and scanning times were collected. For the battery-powered system, OnControl was used. For the manual drill system, Bonopty, Osteo-site, and Laurane drill systems were used. Comparisons in lytic and sclerotic lesions and suspected discitis/osteomyelitis were made using the Fisher exact test. Subgroup analysis of the drill systems for scanning time and radiation dose was performed by 1-way ANOVA.
Our patient cohorts consisted of a total of 585 patients with 422 lytic, 110 sclerotic, and 53 suspected infectious lesions. The mean age was 62 ± 13 years with a male/female ratio of 305:280 for all lesions. The diagnostic yield was 85.5% (362/422) for lytic, 82.7% (91/110) for sclerotic, 50.9% (27/53) for infectious lesions, and 82.1% (480/585) for all lesions. No statistical difference was found when comparing diagnostic yields of powered drills with the manual systems for lytic, sclerotic, and infectious lesions. However, in a subgroup analysis, radiation dose and scanning time were significantly lower for powered drill compared with manual drill systems in lytic ( = .001 for both) and sclerotic lesions ( = .028 and = .012, respectively). No significant differences were seen between the drill systems for suspected infectious lesions.
Our findings demonstrate that there was no statistically significant difference in diagnostic yield when comparing battery-powered and manual bone biopsy systems for CT-guided bone biopsies; however, the use of the power drill system resulted in significantly reduced scanning time and radiation dose in lytic and sclerotic lesions.
在各种类型的骨病变中,骨活检钻系统的比较疗效数据稀缺。我们的目的是研究手动和电池驱动骨活检系统在 CT 引导下活检溶骨性、硬化性和感染性骨病变时在诊断率、扫描时间和辐射剂量方面的差异。
这是一项回顾性的单中心机构审查委员会批准的研究。2010 年 5 月至 2019 年 2 月,在一家机构共进行了 585 例 CT 引导下的核心针活检。收集骨病变的分类、位置、骨活检系统、原发性疾病的可疑来源、最终病理诊断、诊断率、压碎伪影的存在、辐射剂量和扫描时间。对于电池驱动系统,使用 OnControl。对于手动钻系统,使用 Bonopty、Osteo-site 和 Laurane 钻系统。使用 Fisher 精确检验比较溶骨性和硬化性病变以及疑似椎间盘炎/骨髓炎。通过单因素方差分析对扫描时间和辐射剂量的钻系统进行亚组分析。
我们的患者队列包括 585 例患者,其中 422 例为溶骨性病变,110 例为硬化性病变,53 例为疑似感染性病变。平均年龄为 62±13 岁,所有病变的男女比例为 305:280。溶骨性病变的诊断率为 85.5%(362/422),硬化性病变为 82.7%(91/110),感染性病变为 50.9%(27/53),所有病变为 82.1%(480/585)。当比较溶骨性、硬化性和感染性病变的动力钻与手动系统的诊断率时,未发现统计学差异。然而,在亚组分析中,与手动钻系统相比,动力钻系统在溶骨性(=0.001)和硬化性病变(=0.028 和=0.012)中的辐射剂量和扫描时间显著降低。在疑似感染性病变中,各钻系统之间未见显著差异。
我们的研究结果表明,在 CT 引导下骨活检中,比较电池驱动和手动骨活检系统的诊断率时,没有统计学上的显著差异;然而,使用动力钻系统可显著减少溶骨性和硬化性病变的扫描时间和辐射剂量。