Computed Tomography-Navigation™ Electromagnetic System Compared to Conventional Computed Tomography Guidance for Percutaneous Lung Biopsy: A Single-Center Experience
Morgane Lanouzière,
Olivier Varbédian,
Olivier Chevallier,
Loïc Griviau,
Kévin Guillen,
Romain Popoff,
Serge-Ludwig Aho-Glélé,
Romaric Loffroy
Affiliations
Morgane Lanouzière
Image-Guided Therapy Center, Department of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, François-Mitterrand University Hospital, 14 Rue Paul Gaffarel, BP 77908, 21079 Dijon, France
Olivier Varbédian
Georges-François Leclerc Cancer Center, Department of Radiology, 1 Rue du Professeur Marion, 21000 Dijon, France
Olivier Chevallier
Image-Guided Therapy Center, Department of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, François-Mitterrand University Hospital, 14 Rue Paul Gaffarel, BP 77908, 21079 Dijon, France
Loïc Griviau
Georges-François Leclerc Cancer Center, Department of Radiology, 1 Rue du Professeur Marion, 21000 Dijon, France
Kévin Guillen
Image-Guided Therapy Center, Department of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, François-Mitterrand University Hospital, 14 Rue Paul Gaffarel, BP 77908, 21079 Dijon, France
Romain Popoff
Georges-François Leclerc Cancer Center, Department of Medical Physics, 1 Rue du Professeur Marion, 21000 Dijon, France
Serge-Ludwig Aho-Glélé
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, François-Mitterrand University Hospital, 14 Rue Paul Gaffarel, BP 77908, 21079 Dijon, France
Romaric Loffroy
Image-Guided Therapy Center, Department of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, François-Mitterrand University Hospital, 14 Rue Paul Gaffarel, BP 77908, 21079 Dijon, France
The aim of our study was to assess the efficacy of a computed tomography (CT)-Navigation™ electromagnetic system compared to conventional CT methods for percutaneous lung biopsies (PLB). In this single-center retrospective study, data of a CT-Navigation™ system guided PLB (NAV-group) and conventional CT PLB (CT-group) performed between January 2017 and February 2020 were reviewed. The primary endpoint was the diagnostic success. Secondary endpoints were technical success, total procedure duration, number of CT acquisitions and the dose length product (DLP) during step ∆1 (from planning to initial needle placement), step ∆2 (progression to target), and the entire intervention (from planning to final control) and complications. Additional parameters were recorded, such as the lesion’s size and trajectory angles. Sixty patients were included in each group. The lesions median size and median values of the two trajectory angles were significantly lower (20 vs. 29.5 mm, p = 0.006) and higher in the NAV-group (15.5° and 10° vs. 6° and 1°; p p = 0.487) and total number of CT acquisitions (p = 0.066), but the DLP was significantly lower in the NAV-group (p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in complication rate. For PLB, CT-Navigation™ system is efficient and safe as compared to the conventional CT method.
