Sonographically guided biopsy of focal lesions: A comparison of freehand and probe-guided techniques using a phantom

被引:46
作者
Phal, PM
Brooks, DM
Wolfe, R
机构
[1] Univ Melbourne, Dept Radiol, Austin Hlth, Heidelberg, Vic 3084, Australia
[2] Monash Univ, Dept Epidemiol & Prevent Med, Melbourne, Vic 3004, Australia
关键词
D O I
10.2214/ajr.184.5.01841652
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVE. A phantom model of lesions in the human liver with simulated ribs was used to test an ultrasound probe-guided sonographic biopsy technique. The aim of the experiment was to compare biopsy time and sample quality between freehand and probe-guided methods of sonographic biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Ten operators with a range of clinical biopsy experience were tested. Each operator was given two phantoms containing four targets. Each target was biopsied with both biopsy methods. Data collected included procedure time and sample quality in the biopsy specimen. Analyses were stratified by level of operator experience. RESULTS. Median biopsy time was 23 see with the ultrasound probe guide and 32 see freehand. Differences between probe-guided and freehand pairs of measurements approximately followed a normal distribution. The mean time difference between probe-guided and freehand times to complete biopsy was -20 see (95% confidence interval, -35 to -5 see; p 0.01). Analysis of sample quality across all operators showed no difference. CONCLUSION. The ultrasound probe-guided technique of sonographic biopsy could be used in a complex phantom model, and there was a statistically significant time benefit with the use of probe guides compared with the freehand biopsy technique, This benefit was greatest for inexperienced operators, There was no difference in sample quality between the probe-guided and freehand techniques.
引用
收藏
页码:1652 / 1656
页数:5
相关论文
共 14 条
[1]   STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT [J].
BLAND, JM ;
ALTMAN, DG .
LANCET, 1986, 1 (8476) :307-310
[2]   NEEDLE-BIOPSY OF RENAL-ALLOGRAFTS - COMPARISON OF 2 TECHNIQUES [J].
BOGAN, ML ;
KOPECKY, KK ;
KRAFT, JL ;
HOLLADAY, AO ;
FILO, RS ;
LEAPMAN, SB ;
THOMALLA, JV .
RADIOLOGY, 1990, 174 (01) :273-275
[3]  
Cronan JJ, 1996, RADIOL CLIN N AM, V34, P1207
[4]   Relative ultrasonographic echogenicity of standard, dimpled, and polymeric-coated needles [J].
Culp, WC ;
McCowan, TC ;
Goertzen, TC ;
Habbe, TG ;
Hummel, MM ;
LeVeen, RF ;
Anderson, JC .
JOURNAL OF VASCULAR AND INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY, 2000, 11 (03) :351-358
[5]  
ELVIN A, 1994, EUR RADIOL, V4, P430
[6]   Sonographic guidance in biopsies and drainages: Techniques and applications [J].
Esola, CC ;
Chopra, S ;
Dodd, GD .
SEMINARS IN INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY, 1997, 14 (04) :343-369
[7]  
Gibson R N, 1995, Australas Radiol, V39, P356
[8]   Treated needles - Do they facilitate sonographically guided biopsies? [J].
Jandzinski, DI ;
Carson, N ;
Davis, D ;
Rubens, DJ ;
Voci, SL ;
Gottlieb, RH .
JOURNAL OF ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE, 2003, 22 (11) :1233-1237
[9]  
LINDGREN G, 1996, INVASIVE ULTRASOUND, P641
[10]   Changes in ultrasonographic echogenicity and visibility of needles with changes in angles of insonation [J].
Nichols, K ;
Wright, LB ;
Spencer, T ;
Culp, WC .
JOURNAL OF VASCULAR AND INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY, 2003, 14 (12) :1553-1557