Rofo 2022; 194(03): 272-280
DOI: 10.1055/a-1586-2733
Interventional Radiology

Phantom study for comparison between computed tomography- and C-Arm computed tomography-guided puncture applied by residents in radiology

Article in several languages: English | deutsch

Authors

  • Timo C. Meine

    1   Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
  • Jan B. Hinrichs

    1   Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
  • Thomas Werncke

    1   Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
  • Saif Afat

    2   Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Tübingen, Germany
  • Lorenz Biggemann

    3   Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany
  • Andreas Bucher

    4   Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Germany
  • Martina Büttner

    5   Clinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Ulm University Medical Center, Ulm, Germany
  • Sara Christner

    6   Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
  • Ebba Dethlefsen

    7   Clinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Germany
  • Hannes Engel

    8   Department of Radiology, Medical Center – University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Germany
  • Mirjam Gerwing

    9   Clinic for Radiology, University Hospital Münster, Germany
  • Tobias Getzin

    1   Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
  • Stephanie Gräger

    10   Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Germany
  • Eva Gresser

    11   Department of Radiology, Ludwig Maximilians University Munich, München, Germany
  • Jan-Peter Grunz

    6   Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
  • Felix Harder

    12   Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Technical University of Munich, München, Germany
  • Julius Heidenreich

    13   Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Würzburg, Germany
  • Lea Hitpaß

    7   Clinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Germany
  • Kristina Jakobi

    14   Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Rostock University Medical Center, Rostock, Germany
  • Michael Janisch

    15   Department of Radiology, University Hospital Graz, Austria
  • Nadja Kocher

    16   Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Germany
  • Markus Kopp

    17   Institute of Radiology, University Hospitals Erlangen Department of Radiology, Erlangen, Germany
  • Simon Lennartz

    18   Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Köln, Germany
  • Ole Martin

    19   Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Düsseldorf, Medical Faculty, Düsseldorf, Germany
  • Tawfik Moher Alsady

    1   Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
  • Matthias Pamminger

    20   Department of Radiology, Medical University Innsbruck Department of Radiology, Innsbruck, Austria
  • Frederico Pedersoli

    7   Clinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Germany
  • Paula Louise Piechotta

    21   Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Leipzig, Germany
  • Natascha Platz Batista da Silva

    22   Institute of Diagnostic Radiology, University Hospital Regensburg, Germany
  • Marcus Raudner

    23   University Clinic of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, General Hospital of the City of Vienna-Hospital of the Medical University of Vienna, Wien, Austria
  • Sebastian Roehrich

    23   University Clinic of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, General Hospital of the City of Vienna-Hospital of the Medical University of Vienna, Wien, Austria
  • Philipp Schindler

    9   Clinic for Radiology, University Hospital Münster, Germany
  • Vincent Schwarze

    24   Department of Radiology, Ludwig Maximilians University Munich, München, Germany
  • Danilo Seppelt

    25   Department for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Germany
  • Malte M. Sieren

    26   Clinic for Radiology und Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein Lübeck Campus, Lübeck, Germany
  • Manuela Spurny

    27   Department for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Germany
  • Jitka Starekova

    28   Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf Center of Diagnostic, Hamburg, Germany
  • Corinna Storz

    29   Neuroradiology, University Hospital Freiburg, Germany
  • Marco Wiesmüller

    17   Institute of Radiology, University Hospitals Erlangen Department of Radiology, Erlangen, Germany
  • David Zopfs

    30   Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Köln, Germany
  • Kristina Imeen Ringe

    1   Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
  • Bernhard C. Meyer

    1   Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
  • Frank K. Wacker

    1   Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany

Supported by: Deutsche Röntgengesellschaft e. V. (Forscher-für-die-Zukunft)

Abstract

Purpose Comparison of puncture deviation and puncture duration between computed tomography (CT)- and C-arm CT (CACT)-guided puncture performed by residents in training (RiT).

Methods In a cohort of 25 RiTs enrolled in a research training program either CT- or CACT-guided puncture was performed on a phantom. Prior to the experiments, the RiT’s level of training, experience playing a musical instrument, video games, and ball sports, and self-assessed manual skills and spatial skills were recorded. Each RiT performed two punctures. The first puncture was performed with a transaxial or single angulated needle path and the second with a single or double angulated needle path. Puncture deviation and puncture duration were compared between the procedures and were correlated with the self-assessments.

Results RiTs in both the CT guidance and CACT guidance groups did not differ with respect to radiologic experience (p = 1), angiographic experience (p = 0.415), and number of ultrasound-guided puncture procedures (p = 0.483), CT-guided puncture procedures (p = 0.934), and CACT-guided puncture procedures (p = 0.466). The puncture duration was significantly longer with CT guidance (without navigation tool) than with CACT guidance with navigation software (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the puncture duration between the first and second puncture using CT guidance (p = 0.719). However, in the case of CACT, the second puncture was significantly faster (p = 0.006). Puncture deviations were not different between CT-guided and CACT-guided puncture (p = 0.337) and between the first and second puncture of CT-guided and CACT-guided puncture (CT: p = 0.130; CACT: p = 0.391). The self-assessment of manual skills did not correlate with puncture deviation (p = 0.059) and puncture duration (p = 0.158). The self-assessed spatial skills correlated positively with puncture deviation (p = 0.011) but not with puncture duration (p = 0.541).

Conclusion The RiTs achieved a puncture deviation that was clinically adequate with respect to their level of training and did not differ between CT-guided and CACT-guided puncture. The puncture duration was shorter when using CACT. CACT guidance with navigation software support has a potentially steeper learning curve. Spatial skills might accelerate the learning of image-guided puncture.

Key Points:

  • The CT-guided and CACT-guided puncture experience of the RiTs selected as part of the program “Researchers for the Future” of the German Roentgen Society was adequate with respect to the level of training.

  • Despite the lower collective experience of the RiTs with CACT-guided puncture with navigation software assistance, the learning curve regarding CACT-guided puncture may be faster compared to the CT-guided puncture technique.

  • If the needle path is complex, CACT guidance with navigation software assistance might have an advantage over CT guidance.

Citation Format

  • Meine TC, Hinrichs JB, Werncke T et al. Phantom study for comparison between computed tomography- and C-Arm computed tomography-guided puncture applied by residents in radiology. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2022; 194: 272 – 280



Publication History

Received: 21 February 2021

Accepted: 27 July 2021

Article published online:
18 November 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany