Sonographically guided biopsy of focal lesions: A comparison of freehand and probe-guided techniques using a phantom

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 184, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 1652-1656

  Phal, Pramit M ^a   Brooks, Duncan M ^a   Wolfe, Rory ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^b MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOPSY TECHNIQUE; CONFERENCE PAPER; ECHOGRAPHY; EXPERIENCE; INTERVIEW; LIVER INJURY; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TIME; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; BIOPSY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ENDOSCOPIC ECHOGRAPHY; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; LIVER DISEASE; METHODOLOGY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; BIOPSY; HUMANS; LIVER DISEASES; OBSERVER VARIATION; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; TIME FACTORS; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, INTERVENTIONAL;

EID: 19844376482     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/ajr.184.5.01841652     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (14)

1. Lindgren G, Andersson T. Invasive ultrasound. The NICER yearbook 1996 ultrasonography. Oslo, Norway: Isis Medical Media, 1996:641-668
2. Esola CC, Chopra S, Dodd GD. Sonographic guidance in biopsies and drainages: techniques and applications. Semin Interv Radiol 1997;14:343-369
3. Cronan JJ. Percutaneous biopsy. Radiol Clin North Am 1996;34:1207-1223
4. Samir AE, Brooks M, Phal PM. A low cost phantom for use in ultrasound, CT, and MRI guided interventional procedures. (abstr) Scientific Program, RSNA Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL: Radiological Society of North America, 2002:155-156
5. Gibson RN, Gibson KI. A home-made phantom for learning ultrasound-guided invasive techniques. Aust Radiol 1995;39:356-357
6. Nicholson RA, Crofton M. Training phantom for ultrasound guided biopsy. Br J Radiol 1997;70:192-194
7. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307-310
8. Nyman RS, Cappelen-Smith J, Al Suhaibani H, Alfurayh O, Shakweer W, Akhtar M. Yield and complications in percutaneous renal biopsy: a comparison between ultrasound-guided gun-biopsy and manual techniques in native and tansplant kidneys. Acta Radiol 1997;38:431-436
9. Culp WC, McGowan TC, Goertzen TC, et al. Relative ultrasonographic echogenicity of standard, dimpled, and polymeric-coated needles. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2000;11:351-358
10. Jandzinski DI, Carson N, Davis D, Rubens DJ, Voci SL, Gottlieb RH. Treated needles: do they facilitate sonographically guided biopsies? J Ultrasound Med 2003;22:1233-1237
11. Nichols K, Wright LB, Spencer T, Culp WC. Changes in ultrasonographic echogenicity and visibility of needles with changes in angles of insonation. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2003;14:1553-1557
12. Elvin A, Andersson T, Jaremko G, Lindgren PG. Significance of operator experience in diagnostic accuracy of biopsy gun biopsies. Eur Radiol 1994;4:430-433
13. Tung KT, Downes MO, O'Donnell PJ. Renal biopsy in diffuse renal disease: experience with a 14-gauge automated biopsy gun. Clin Radiol 1992;46:111-113
14. Bogan ML, Kopecky KK, Kraft JL, et al. Needle biopsy of renal allografts: comparison of two techniques. Radiology 1990;174:273-275