Electromagnetic navigation to assist with computed tomography-guided thermal ablation of liver tumors. Issue 5 (1st October 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Zhang, Zhewei; Shao, Guoliang; Zheng, Jiaping; Wen, Song; Zeng, Hui; Hao, Weiyuan; Luo, Jun; Guo, Liwen
• Is Part Of: Minimally invasive therapy & allied technologies. Volume 29:Issue 5(2020)
• Page Start: 275
• Page End: 282
• Publication Date: 2020-10-01
• Subjects: Electromagnetic navigation system -- computed tomography-guided -- liver tumors -- thermal ablation; Endoscopy -- Periodicals; Interventional radiology -- Periodicals; Endoscopic surgery -- Periodicals; 617.05
• DOI: 10.1080/13645706.2019.1649699
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1364-5706

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: To evaluate the advantages and primary technical efficacy of an electromagnetic (EM) navigation system for computed tomography (CT)-guided thermal ablation of liver tumors. Material and methods: From August 2016 to January 2018, 40 patients scheduled for CT- guided thermal ablation were prospectively enrolled and divided into two groups. Twenty patients underwent CT-guided thermal ablation with an EM navigation system (navigation group), while the other 20 patients underwent conventional CT-guided thermal ablation (control group). Data on skin punctures, instrument adjustments, puncture time to target, CT scans, CT fluoroscopy time and dose-length-product (DLP) were compared between the two groups. Any postoperative complications were recorded and the primary technical efficacy was evaluated four to six weeks after the procedure. Results: All 20 patients in the navigation group successfully underwent EM navigation. Compared to the control group, there were fewer instrument adjustments (mean 2.40 vs. 4.95; p = .003), fewer CT scans (mean 7.10 vs. 10.30; p = .006), less CT fluoroscopy time (mean 40.47 vs. 59.98 s, p = .046), and less DLP (mean 807.39 vs. 1578.67 mGy × cm; p = .001). Although not statistically significant, EM navigation resulted in fewer skin punctures (mean 1.20 vs. 1.25; p = .803) and slightly longer puncture time to target (mean 16.50 vs. 15.20 min; p = .725). No patients experienced major complications and the primary efficacy rate was 90% and 84.21% in the navigation and control groups, respectively ( p = .661). Conclusions: EM navigation system optimizes the thermal ablation process and reduces radiation exposure in patients. However, further studies are warranted to determine whether an EM navigation system can improve procedure time, complication rates, and primary technical efficiacy of thermal ablation.