A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

The usefulness of three-dimensional ultrasound fusion imaging for precise needle placement in liver thermal ablation: a phantom and an simulation study. | LitMetric

Purpose: To investigate the value of three-dimensional ultrasound fusion imaging (3DUS-FI) in real-time guiding needle placement by phantom models and simulations.

Materials And Methods: Two radiologists (beginner and expert) performed needle placement using two-dimensional ultrasound (2DUS) and 3DUS-FI, respectively. In the phantom study, single-needle placement was performed by puncturing the center point of each ball and assessed based on the specimen length. Multiple-needles placement was performed by placing three needles in each ball, and their locations were confirmed by computed tomography, and assessed based on the distance deviation between needles. In the simulation study, simulated-needle placement was performed by placing a virtual ablation needle in each liver tumor and assessed by the simulated ablative cover rate and margin.

Results: Specimen length was significantly longer with 3DUS-FI in the beginner, whereas no significant difference was observed in the expert (2DUS vs. 3DUS-FI: beginner, 14.60 ± 2.60 mm vs. 16.25 ± 1.38 mm,  = .017; expert, 16.78 ± 1.40 mm vs. 16.95 ± 1.15 mm,  = .668). Distance deviation between needles was significantly smaller with 3DUS-FI (2DUS vs. 3DUS-FI: beginner, 25.06 ± 16.07 mm vs. 3.72 ± 1.99 mm,  < .001; expert, 11.70 ± 7.79 mm vs. 2.89 ± 1.52 mm,  < .001). The simulated ablative cover rate and margin were significantly larger with 3DUS-FI for the beginner, whereas only the latter was significantly larger for the expert (2DUS vs. 3DUS-FI: beginner, 73.55 ± 8.73% vs. 81.38 ± 11.84%,  = .001, 0.82 ± 0.97 mm vs. 2.65 ± 1.23 mm,  < .001; expert, 78.60 ± 9.91% vs. 83.24 ± 11.69%,  = .059; 1.65 ± 1.15 mm vs. 2.95 ± 1.13 mm,  < .001).

Conclusions: 3DUS-FI is useful for real-time guiding precise needle placement and may be further use to improve the efficacy of liver thermal ablation.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02656736.2022.2057596DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

needle placement
12
2dus 3dus-fi
12
placement performed
12
3dus-fi beginner
12
three-dimensional ultrasound
8
ultrasound fusion
8
fusion imaging
8
simulation study
8
assessed based
8
specimen length
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!