Advertisement

Pediatric Radiology

, 36:398 | Cite as

Image-guided therapy and minimally invasive surgery in children: a merging future

  • Eran Shlomovitz
  • Joao G. Amaral
  • Peter G. ChaitEmail author
Minisymposium

Abstract

Minimally invasive image-guided therapy for children, also known as pediatric interventional radiology (PIR), is a new and exciting field of medicine. Two key elements that helped the rapid evolution and dissemination of this specialty were the creation of devices appropriate for the pediatric population and the development of more cost-effective and minimally invasive techniques. Despite its clear advantages to children, many questions are raised regarding who should be performing these procedures. Unfortunately, this is a gray zone with no clear answer. Surgeons fear that interventional radiologists will take over additional aspects of the surgical/procedural spectrum. Interventional radiologists, on the other hand, struggle to avoid becoming highly specialized technicians rather than physicians who are responsible for complete care of their patients. In this article, we briefly discuss some of the current aspects of minimally invasive image-guided therapy in children and innovations that are expected to be incorporated into clinical practice in the near future. Then, we approach the current interspecialty battles over the control of this field and suggest some solutions to these issues. Finally, we propose the development of a generation of physicians with both surgical and imaging skills.

Keywords

Pediatric Interventional therapy Surgery Vascular Resident education/training 

References

  1. 1.
    Nakstad PH (1997) Interventional neuroradiology. Acta Radiol 40:344–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thomson KR (1997) Interventional radiology. Lancet 350:354–358CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Weiss VJ, Lumsden AB (1999) Minimally invasive vascular surgery: review of current modalities. World J Surg 23:406–414CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rattner DW (1999) Beyond the laparoscope: minimally invasive surgery in the new millennium. Surgery 125:19–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wollman B, D’Agostino HB, Walus-Wigle JR, et al (1995) Radiologic, endoscopic, and surgical gastrostomy: an institutional evaluation and meta-analysis of the literature. Radiology 197:699–704PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brown CV, Abrishami M, Muller M, et al (2003) Appendiceal abscess: immediate operation or percutaneous drainage? Am Surg 69:829–832PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chait PG, Shlomovitz E, Connolly BL, et al (2003) Percutaneous cecostomy: updates in technique and patient care. Radiology 227:246–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kaye RD, Sane SS, Towbin RB (2000) Pediatric intervention: an update-part I. J Vasc Interv Radiol 11:683–697PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Olsen AK, Bjerkeset OA (1999) Laparoscopic ultrasound (LUS) in gastrointestinal surgery. Eur J Ultrasound 10:159–170CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Berber E, Siperstein AE (2004) Laparoscopic ultrasound. Surg Clin North Am 84:1061–1084, viCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Neff M, Cantor B, Koren J, et al (2004) Application of Doppler technology as an aid in identifying vascular structures during laparoscopy. JSLS 8:259–261PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brenner D, Elliston C, Hall E, et al (2001) Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR 176:289–296PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Berrington de Gonzalez A, Darby S (2004) Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. Lancet 363:345–351CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liu H, Hall WA, Martin AJ, et al (2000) MR-guided and MR-monitored neurosurgical procedures at 1.5 T. J Comput Assist Tomogr 24:909–918CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Genant JW, Vandevenne JE, Bergman AG, et al (2002) Interventional musculoskeletal procedures performed by using MR imaging guidance with a vertically open MR unit: assessment of techniques and applicability. Radiology 223:127–136PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Di Mario C, Griffiths H, Goktekin O, et al (2004) Drug-eluting bioabsorbable magnesium stent. J Interv Cardiol 17:391–395CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rosenthal DI, Hornicek FJ, Wolfe MW, et al (1998) Percutaneous radiofrequency coagulation of osteoid osteoma compared with operative treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Am 80:815–821PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cholewa D, Wacker F, Roggan A, et al (1998) Magnetic resonance imaging: controlled interstitial laser therapy in children with vascular malformations. Lasers Surg Med 23:250–257CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hynynen K, McDannold N (2004) MRI guided and monitored focused ultrasound thermal ablation methods: a review of progress. Int J Hyperthermia 20:725–737CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tempany CM, Stewart EA, McDannold N, et al (2003) MR imaging-guided focused ultrasound surgery of uterine leiomyomas: a feasibility study. Radiology 226:897–905PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Baerlocher MO, Asch MR (2004) The future interventional radiologist: clinician or hired gun? J Vasc Interv Radiol 15:1385–1390PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Diethrich EB (2003) Future potential of endovascular techniques for vascular surgeons. Semin Vasc Surg 16:255–261; discussion 261CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Green RM, Waldman D (2003) Five-year results of a merger between vascular surgeons and interventional radiologists in a university medical center. J Vasc Surg 38:1213–1219CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Messina LM, Schneider DB, Chuter TA, et al (2002) Integrated fellowship in vascular surgery and intervention radiology: a new paradigm in vascular training. Ann Surg 236:408–414; discussion 414–405CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Veith FJ, Marin ML (1996) Endovascular technology and its impact on the relationships among vascular surgeons, interventional radiologists, and other specialists. World J Surg 20:687–691CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Veith FJ (1997) Presidential address: Charles Darwin and vascular surgery. J Vasc Surg 25:8–18CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sicard GA (2000) Presidential address: challenge to our specialty: the vascular surgeon in the year 2010. J Vasc Surg 31:845–850CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ouriel K, Green RM, Waldman D, et al (1998) A model for merging vascular surgery and interventional radiology: clinical and economical implications. J Vasc Surg 28:1006–1010; discussion 1011–1013CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Darling RC 3rd, Shah DM, Stainken BF, et al (2001) The multidisciplinary approach to prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease: creation of a vascular care network. Semin Vasc Surg 14:64–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Green RM (2000) Collaboration between vascular surgeons and interventional radiologists: reflections after two years. J Vasc Surg 31:826–830CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Whittemore A, Creager M (1998) The vascular center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Cardiovasc Surg 6:327–332CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Laerum F (2001) Demand for a new main speciality in image-guided therapy. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 66:81–85CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zarins CK (1996) Unified multispecialty approach: is it a viable response to new technology used in the care of vascular patients? J Endovasc Surg 3:364–368CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Moore WS, Clagett GP, Hobson RW 2nd, et al (1996) Vision of optimal vascular surgical training in the next two decades: strategies for adapting to new technologies. J Vasc Surg 23:926–931CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Levin DC, Rao VM, Bree RL, et al (1999) Turf battles in radiology: how the radiology community can collectively respond to the challenge. Radiology 211:301–305PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Levin DC, Abrams HL, Castaneda-Zuniga WR, et al (1994) Lessons from history: why radiologists lost coronary angiography and what can be done to prevent future similar losses. Invest Radiol 29:480–484PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Levin DC, Rao VM, Bree RL, et al (1998) Turf battles in radiology: how individual radiologists can respond to the challenge. Radiology 209:330–334PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wysocki WM, Moesta KT, Schlag PM (2003) Surgery, surgical education and surgical diagnostic procedures in the digital era. Med Sci Monit 9:RA69–75PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Keller FS (2000) Interventional radiology: new paradigms for the new millennium. J Vasc Interv Radiol 11:677–681PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Becker GJ (2001) 2000 RSNA annual oration in diagnostic radiology: the future of interventional radiology. Radiology 220:281–292PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Baerlocher MO, Collingwood P, Becker GJ (2005) Enhancing interventional radiology training in Canada: creating new choices for medical students and residents. Current training options in the United States. Can Assoc Radiol J 56:163–169PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Levi DS, Alejos JC, Moore JW (2003) Future of interventional cardiology in pediatrics. Curr Opin Cardiol 18:79–90CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jacob AL, Regazzoni P, Steinbrich W, et al (2000) The multifunctional therapy room of the future: image guidance, interdisciplinarity, integration and impact on patient pathways. Eur Radiol 10:1763–1769CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eran Shlomovitz
    • 1
  • Joao G. Amaral
    • 1
  • Peter G. Chait
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Centre for Image Guided TherapyHospital for Sick ChildrenTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations