ArticleCardiovascular and interventional radiology2024
Gyroscope-Assisted CT-Guided Puncture Improves Accuracy and Hit Rate Compared with Free-Hand Puncture: A Phantom Study.
Article in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Smartphone Technology for Applications in Image-Guided Minimally Invasive Interventional Procedures.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate gyroscope-assisted CT-guided needle puncture (GAP) compared to free hand puncture (FHP) in a phantom. MATERIAL AND
methodsA simple, low-cost gyroscope was equipped with a magnetic rail to attach it to common puncture needles. 18 radiologists with different levels of training and experience in CT-guided punctures first punctured three targets in free hand technique in a special biopsy phantom with different difficulty levels of the puncture path (T1: not angulated, needle path 7.3 cm, size 15 mm in diameter, T2: single angulated 41°, needle path 11.3 cm, size 9 mm in diameter, T3: double angulated 38°/26°, needle path 7 cm, size 8 mm in diameter). Without knowing the result of the puncture, a second puncture was performed directly afterwards with the aid of the gyroscope. Punctures were performed in a continuous procedure without intermediate control. The hit rate and the distance between the needle tip and the center of the lesion were evaluated. Additionally, the time needed for the procedure was measured.
resultsThirty-three of 54 insertions (61.1%) hit the target in GAP compared to 20 of 54 (37%) in FHP (p = 0.002). The mean distance of the needle tip to the lesion center was 7.49 ± 5.31 mm in GAP compared to 13.37 ± 10.24 mm in FHP (p < 0.001). Puncture time was not significantly different between GAP (36.72 ± 20.38 s) and FHP (37.83 ± 20.53 s) (p = 0.362).
conclusionNeedle guidance with a gyroscope enables an improved hit rate and puncture accuracy in CT-guided punctures without prolonging the puncture time. The needle guidance by gyroscope is inexpensive and easy to establish.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39237781What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.