CBCT-Based Image Guidance for Percutaneous Access: Electromagnetic Navigation Versus 3D Image Fusion with Fluoroscopy Versus Combination of Both Technologies—A Phantom Study
- 28 Downloads
We set out to compare three types of three-dimensional CBCT-based imaging guidance modalities in a phantom study: image fusion with fluoroscopy (IF), electromagnetic navigation (EMN) and the association of both technologies (CEMNIF).
Materials and Methods
Four targets with a median diameter of 11 mm [first quartile (Q1): 10; third quartile (Q3): 12] with acute angle access (z-axis < 45°) and four targets of 10 mm [8–15] with large angle access (z-axis > 45°) were defined on an abdominal phantom (CIRS, Meditest, Tabuteau, France). Acute angle access targets were punctured using IF, EMN or CEMNIF and large angle access targets with EMN by four operators with various experiences. Efficacy (target reached), accuracy (distance between needle tip and target center), procedure time, radiation exposure and reproducibility were explored and compared.
All targets were reached (100% efficacy) by all operators. For targets with acute angle access, procedure times (EMN: 265 s [236–360], IF: 292 s [260–345], CEMNIF: 320 s [240–333]) and accuracy (EMN: 3 mm [2–5], IF: 2 mm [1–3], CEMNIF: 3 mm [2–4]) were similar. Radiation exposure (EMN: 0; IF: 708 mGy.cm2 [599–1128]; CEMNIF: 51 mGy.cm2 [15–150]; p < 0.001) was significantly higher with IF than with CEMNIF and EMN. For targets with large angle access, procedure times (EMN: 345 s [259–457], CEMNIF: 425 s [340–473]; p = 0.01) and radiation exposure (EMN: 0, CEMIF: 159 mGy.cm2 [39–316]; p < 0.001) were significantly lower with EMN but with lower accuracy (EMN: 4 mm [4–6] and CEMNIF: 4 mm [3, 4]; p = 0.01). The operator’s experience did not impact the tested parameters regardless of the technique.
In this phantom study, EMN was not limited to acute angle targets. Efficacy and accuracy of puncture for acute angle access targets with EMN, IF or CEMNIF were similar. CEMNIF is more accurate for large angle access targets at the cost of a slightly higher procedure time and radiation exposure.
Keywords3D image guidance CBCT Percutaneous intervention Electromagnetic navigation Phantom study Radiation exposure Accuracy
The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.
This study was not supported by any funding.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 2.Fenster A, Bax J, Neshat H, Cool D, Kakani N, Romagnoli C. 3D ultrasound imaging in image-guided intervention. In: Conference proceedings: annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society conference. 2014, vol. 2014, p. 6151–6154Google Scholar
- 11.Deschamps F, Solomon SB, Thornton RH, Rao P, Hakime A, Kuoch V, et al. Computed analysis of three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography angiography for determination of tumor-feeding vessels during chemoembolization of liver tumor: a pilot study. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2010;33:1235–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Lucatelli P, Argiro R, Ginanni Corradini S, Saba L, Cirelli C, Fanelli F, et al. Comparison of image quality and diagnostic performance of cone-beam CT during drug-eluting embolic transarterial chemoembolization and multidetector CT in the detection of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Vasc Interv Radiol JVIR. 2017;28:978–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Leger T, Tacher V, Majewski M, Touma J, Desgranges P, Kobeiter H. Image fusion guidance for in situ laser fenestration of aortic stent graft for endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysm: feasibility, efficacy and overall functional success. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2019;42:1371–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Rouchy RC, Moreau-Gaudry A, Chipon E, Aubry S, Pazart L, Lapuyade B, et al. Evaluation of the clinical benefit of an electromagnetic navigation system for CT-guided interventional radiology procedures in the thoraco-abdominal region compared with conventional CT guidance (CTNAV II): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2017;18:306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar