Impact of Dual-Energy Computed Tomography (DECT) Postprocessing Protocols on Detection of Monosodium Urate (MSU) Deposits in Foot Tendons of Cadavers

Objective: To evaluate two different dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) post-processing protocols for the detection of MSU deposits in foot tendons of cadavers with verification by polarizing light microscopy as the gold standard. Material and Methods: A total of 40 embalmed cadavers (15 male; 25 female; median age, 82 years; mean, 80 years; range, 52–99; SD ± 10.9) underwent DECT to assess MSU deposits in foot tendons. Two postprocessing DECT protocols with different Hounsfield unit (HU) thresholds, 150/500 (=established) versus 120/500 (=modified). HU were applied to dual source acquisition with 80 kV for tube A and 140 kV for tube B. Six fresh cadavers (4 male; 2 female; median age, 78; mean, 78.5; range 61–95) were examined by DECT. Tendon dissection of 2/6 fresh cadavers with positive DECT 120 and negative DECT 150 studies were used to verify MSU deposits by polarizing light microscopy. Results: The tibialis anterior tendon was found positive in 57.5%/100% (DECT 150/120), the peroneus tendon in 35%/100%, the achilles tendon in 25%/90%, the flexor halluces longus tendon in 10%/100%, and the tibialis posterior tendon in 12.5%/97.5%. DECT 120 resulted in increased tendon MSU deposit detection, when DECT 150 was negative, with an overall agreement between DECT 150 and DECT 120 of 80% (p = 0.013). Polarizing light microscope confirmed MSU deposits detected only by DECT 120 in the tibialis anterior, the achilles, the flexor halluces longus, and the peroneal tendons. Conclusion: The DECT 120 protocol showed a higher sensitivity when compared to DECT 150

Comparison of a Robotic and Patient-Mounted Device for CT-Guided Needle Placement: A Phantom Study

Background: Robotic-based guidance systems are becoming increasingly capable of assisting in needle placement during interventional procedures. Despite these technical advances, less sophisticated low-cost guidance devices promise to enhance puncture accuracy compared with the traditional freehand technique. Purpose: To compare the in vitro accuracy and feasibility of two different aiming devices for computed-tomography (CT)-guided punctures. Methods: A total of 560 CT-guided punctures were performed by using either a robotic (Perfint Healthcare: Maxio) or a novel low-cost patient-mounted system (Medical Templates AG: Puncture Cube System [PCS]) for the placement of Kirschner wires in a plexiglass phantom with different slice thicknesses. Needle placement accuracy as well as procedural time were assessed. The Euclidean (ED) and normal distances (ND) were calculated at the entry and target point. Results: Using the robotic device, the ND at the target for 1.25 mm, 2.5 mm, 3.75 mm and 5 mm slice thickness were 1.28 mm (SD ± 0.79), 1.25 mm (SD ± 0.81), 1.35 mm (SD ± 1.00) and 1.35 mm (SD ± 1.03). Using the PCS, the ND at the target for 1 mm, 3 mm and 5 mm slices were 3.84 mm (SD ± 1.75), 4.41 mm (SD ± 2.31) and 4.41 mm (SD ± 2.11), respectively. With all comparable slice thicknesses, the robotic device was significantly more accurate compared to the low-cost device (p < 0.001). Needle placement with the PCS resulted in lower intervention time (mean, 158.83 s [SD ± 23.38] vs. 225.67 s [SD ± 17.2]). Conclusion: Although the robotic device provided more accurate results, both guidance systems showed acceptable results and may be helpful for interventions in difficult anatomical regions and for those requiring complex multi-angle trajectories

Reliability of Stereotactic Radiofrequency Ablation (SRFA) for Malignant Liver Tumors: Novice versus Experienced Operators

Purpose: To compare the results of a novice with those of experienced interventional radiologists (IRs) for stereotactic radiofrequency ablation (SRFA) of malignant liver tumors in terms of safety, technical success, and local tumor control. Methods: A database, including all SRFA procedures performed in a single center between January 2011 and December 2018 was retrospectively analyzed. A total of 39 ablation sessions performed by a novice IR were compared to the results of three more experienced IRs. Comparative SRFA sessions were selected using propensity score matching considering tumor type, age, sex, tumor size, and tumor number as matching variables. Overall, 549 target tumors were treated in 273 sessions. Median tumor size was 2.2 cm (1.0–8.5 cm) for 178 hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) and 3.0 cm (0.5–13.0 cm) for 371 metastases. A median of 2 (1–11) tumors were treated per session. Results: No significant differences were observed when comparing the results of more experienced IRs with those of a novice IR regarding the rates of major complications (6.8% [16/234] vs. 5.1% [2/39]; p = 0.477), mortality (1.3% [2/234] vs. 0% [0/39]; p = 0.690), primary technical efficacy (98.5% [525/533] vs. 98.9% [94/95]; p = 0.735), and local recurrence (5.6% [30/533] vs. 5.3% [5/95]; p = 0.886). However, the median planning/placement time was significantly shorter for the experienced IRs (92 min vs. 119 min; p = 0.002). Conclusions: SRFA is a safe, effective, and reliable treatment option for malignant liver tumors and favorable outcomes can be achieved even by inexperienced operators with minimal supervision