Abstract
Purpose
To compare technical success, clinical success, complications, radiation dose, and total room utilization time for osteoid osteoma thermal (radiofrequency or microwave) ablation using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) with two-axis fluoroscopic navigational overlay versus conventional computed tomography (CT) guidance.
Materials and Methods
A retrospective review was performed to identify all osteoid osteoma ablations performed over a 5.5-year period at a single tertiary care pediatric hospital. Twenty-five ablations (15 radiofrequency and 10 microwave) in 23 patients undergoing fluoroscopic CBCT-guided osteoid osteoma ablation were compared to 35 ablations (35 radiofrequency) in 32 patients undergoing ablation via conventional CT guidance. Dose area product and dose length product were recorded for CBCT and conventional CT, respectively, and converted to effective doses. Technical success, clinical success (cessation of pain and medication use 1 month after ablation), complications, radiation dose, and total room utilization time were compared.
Results
All procedures were technically successful. Twenty-two of 25 (88.0%) CBCT and 31 of 35 (88.6%) conventional CT-guided ablations achieved immediate clinical success. There were two minor complications in each group and no major complications. Mean effective radiation dose was significantly lower for CBCT compared to CT guidance (0.12 vs. 0.39 mSv, p = 0.02). Mean total room utilization time for CBCT was longer (133.5 vs. 97.5 min, p = 0.0001).
Conclusions
Fluoroscopic CBCT guidance for percutaneous osteoid osteoma ablation yields similar technical and clinical success, reduced radiation dose, and increased total room utilization time compared to conventional CT guidance.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Earhart J, Wellman D, Donaldson J, et al. Radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of osteoid osteoma: results and complications. Pediatr Radiol. 2013;43(7):814–9.
Rehnitz C, Sprengel SD, Lehner B, et al. CT-guided radiofrequency ablation of osteoid osteoma and osteoblastoma: clinical success and long-term follow up in 77 patients. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(11):3426–34.
de Palma L, Candelari R, Antico E, et al. Treatment of osteoid osteoma with CT-guided percutaneous radiofrequency thermoablation. Orthopedics. 2013;36(5):e581–7.
Whitmore MJ, Hawkins CM, Prologo JD, et al. Cryoablation of osteoid osteoma in the pediatric and adolescent population. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2016;27(2):232–7.
Etienne A, Waynberger E, Druon J. Interstitial laser photocoagulation for the treatment of osteoid osteoma: Retrospective study on 35 cases. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2013;94:300–10.
Tselikas L, Joskin J, Roquet F, et al. Percutaneous bone biopsies: comparison between flat-panel cone-beam CT and CT-scan guidance. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2015;38(1):167–76.
Busser WM, Hoogeveen YL, Veth RP, et al. Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of osteoid osteomas with use of real-time needle guidance for accurate needle placement: a pilot study. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2011;34(1):180–3.
Abi-Jaoudeh N, Venkatesan AM, Van der Sterren W, et al. Clinical experience with cone-beam CT navigation for tumor ablation. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2015;26(2):214–9.
Cazzato RL, Battistuzzi JB, Catena V, et al. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) versus CT in lung ablation procedure: which is faster? Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2015;38(5):1231–6.
McKay T, Ingraham CR, Johnson GE, et al. Cone-beam CT with fluoroscopic overlay versus conventional ct guidance for percutaneous abdominopelvic abscess drain placement. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2016;27(1):52–7.
Carrafiello G, Ierardi AM, Duka E, et al. Usefulness of cone-beam computed tomography and automatic vessel detection software in emergency transarterial embolization. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2016;39(4):530–7.
Floridi C, Radaelli A, Abi-Jaoudeh N, et al. C-arm cone-beam computed tomography in interventional oncology: technical aspects and clinical applications. Radiol Med. 2014;119(7):521–32.
Kim HC. Role of C-arm cone-beam CT in chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma. Korean J Radiol. 2015;16(1):114–24.
Bapst B, Lagadec M, Breguet R, et al. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in the field of interventional oncology of the liver. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2016;39(1):8–20.
Orth RC, Wallace MJ, Kuo MD. C-arm cone-beam CT: general principles and technical considerations for use in interventional radiology. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2008;19(6):814–20.
Orth RC, Wallace MJ, Kuo MD, et al. Technology assessment committee of the society of interventional radiology C-arm cone-beam CT: general principles and technical considerations for use in interventional radiology. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2008;19(6):814–20.
Castellano IA, McNeill JG, Thorp NC, Dance DR, Raphael MJ. Assessment of organ radiation doses and associated risk for digital bifemoral arteriography. Br J Radiol. 1995;68(809):502–7.
McParland BJ. A study of patient radiation doses in interventional radiological procedures. Br J Radiol. 1998;71(842):175–85.
Saltybaeva N, Jafari ME, Hupfer M, Kalender WA. Estimates of effective dose for CT scans of the lower extremities. Radiology. 2014;273(1):153–9.
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States. National Council on Radiation Protection report no. 160. Bethesda, Md: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 2009.
Johnson C, Martin-Carreras T, Rabinowitz D. Pediatric interventional radiology and dose-reduction techniques. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2014;35(4):409–14.
International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). The 2007 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Ann ICRP. 2007;37(2–4):49–50.
Cheng EY, Naranje SM, Ritenour ER. Radiation dosimetry of intraoperative cone-beam compared with conventional CT for radiofrequency ablation of osteoid osteoma. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(9):735–42.
Biswas D, Bible JE, Bohan M, et al. Radiation exposure from musculoskeletal computerized tomographic scans. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(8):1882–9.
Koivisto J, Kiljunen T, Wolff J, Kortesniemi M. Assessment of effective radiation dose of an extremity CBCT, MSCT and conventional X ray for knee area using MOSFET dosemeters. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2013;157(4):515–24.
Zbijewski W, De Jean P, Prakash P, et al. A dedicated cone-beam CT system for musculoskeletal extremities imaging: design, optimization, and initial performance characterization. Med Phys. 2011;38(8):4700–13.
Braak SJ, vanStrijen MJ, van Es HW, et al. Effective dose during needle interventions: cone-beam CT guidance compared with conventional CT guidance. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2011;22:455–61.
Bai M, LiuB MuH, et al. The comparison of radiation dose between C-arm flat-detector CT (DynaCT) and multi-slice CT (MSCT):a phantom study. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:3577–80.
Kwok YM, Irani FG, Tay KH, et al. Effective dose estimates for cone beam computed tomography in interventional radiology. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(11):3197–204.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Brandon C. Perry, Eric J. Monroe, Tyler McKay, Kalpana M. Kanal, and Giridhar Shivaram report no conflicts of interest.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Perry, B.C., Monroe, E.J., McKay, T. et al. Pediatric Percutaneous Osteoid Osteoma Ablation: Cone-Beam CT with Fluoroscopic Overlay Versus Conventional CT Guidance. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 40, 1593–1599 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-017-1685-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-017-1685-2