Body interventional procedures: which is the best method for CT guidance?
- 14 Downloads
To compare sequential fluoroscopy guidance with spiral guidance in terms of safety, effectiveness, speed and radiation in interventional whole body procedures.
This study was a retrospective analysis of data from the prospective, randomised controlled, multicentre CTNAV2 study. The present analysis included 385 patients: 247 in the sequential group (SEQ) and 138 in the spiral group (SPI). Safety was assessed by the number of major complications. Effectiveness was measured according to the number of targets reached. Data on procedural time and radiation delivered to patients were also collected.
There was no significant difference between the two groups (SEQ vs SPI) regarding the success rate (99.6% vs 99.3%, p = 0.680), procedural time (7 min 40 s ± 5 min 48 s vs 7 min 13 s ± 7 min 33 s, p = 0.507), or major complications (2.43% vs 5.8%, p = 0.101). Radiation dose to patients was 84% lower in the sequential group (54.8 ± 51.8 mGy cm vs 352.6 ± 404 mGy cm, p < 0.0001).
Sequential CT fluoroscopy-guided whole-body interventional procedures seems to be as safe, effective and fast as spiral guidance, while also yielding a significant decrease in the radiation dose to patients.
• Sequential CT fluoroscopy and spiral acquisition are comparable in terms of safety, effectiveness and speed.
• Procedural times are comparable despite an increased number of acquisitions in sequential fluoroscopy.
• Radiation dose to patients is 84% lower in sequential fluoroscopy compared with spiral CT.
KeywordsRadiology, interventional Radiation dosage Fluoroscopy Tomography, X-ray computed
Expert Committee for Research, Studies and Evaluations in the field of Health
Computed Dosimetry Dose Index
Computed tomography fluoroscopy
Computed Tomography NAVigation 2
Dose length product
Magnetic resonance imaging
Society of Interventional Radiology
The authors state that this work has not received any funding.
Compliance with ethical standards
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Pr Sébastien Aubry
Conflict of interest
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.
Statistics and biometry
One of the authors has significant statistical expertise.
Patients had given written, informed consent during the CTNAV 2 study as part of a national hospital clinical research programme (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01896219) that their health data could be used for other research purposes.
This study was conducted on existing data from the CTNAV 2 study as part of a national hospital clinical research programme (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01896219). The opinion of the Expert Committee for Research, Studies and Evaluations in the field of Health (CEREES) was therefore not required.
Study subjects or cohorts overlap
Some study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported in : Rouchy RC, Moreau-Gaudry A, Chipon E, et al (2017) 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 18:306. doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-2049-6
• Multicentre study
- 20.Rouchy RC, Moreau-Gaudry A, Chipon E et al (2017) Evaluation of the clinical benefit of an electromagnetic navigation system for CT-guided interventional radiology procedures in the thoracoabdominal region compared with conventional CT guidance (CTNAV II): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 18:306. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2049-6 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 24.Moulin B, Tselikas L, de Baère T et al (2019) CT guidance assisted by electromagnetic navigation system for percutaneous fixation by internal cemented screws (FICS). Eur Radiol 12:6243s–6247sGoogle Scholar
- 27.Hiraki T, Kamegawa T, Matsuno T et al (2019) Robotic needle insertion during computed tomography fluoroscopy-guided biopsy: prospective first-in-human feasibility trial. Eur Radiol 42:74–77Google Scholar