title: Is intraoperative ultrasound (IOUS) still useful for the detection of liver metastases?
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To evaluate the clinical impact of intraoperative ultrasound (IOUS) in the detection of liver metastases during the years, as compared with those of other imaging modalities.
  
  
  METHODS
  All IOUS scans performed for detection of liver metastases from 2000 to 2006 were retrospectively reviewed and compared with the results of preoperative imaging modalities: Ultrasound (US), Computed Tomography (CT), and/or Magnetic Resonance (MR). The number of cases in which IOUS and preoperative imaging studies produced discordant results, in terms of presence/absence of focal liver lesions, was calculated per year. Statistical analysis was performed using the McNemar test. A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Eighty-three IOUS scans performed in 2000-2003 were reviewed, and discordance with preoperative imaging findings was found in 19/83 (23%) cases. Of the 42 IOUS scans done during the 2004-2006 period, 10/42 (24%) showed discordance with preoperative studies. All metastases diagnosed with imaging studies were pathologically confirmed. The number of discordant cases in the two periods were not significantly different (p = 0.2).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  IOUS is still useful in the detection of liver metastases. Its decreased use is probably due to the improved accuracy of preoperative imaging modalities.
authors: Department of Radiology, Policlinico Universitario G.B. Rossi, University of Verona, Italy.
authors: M
authors: M
authors: D'Onofrio
authors: A
authors: A
authors: Gallotti
authors: E
authors: E
authors: Martone
authors: L
authors: L
authors: Nicoli
authors: S
authors: S
authors: Mautone
authors: A
authors: A
authors: Ruzzenente
authors: R Pozzi
authors: RP
authors: Mucelli
keywords: Computed tomography; Intraoperative ultrasound; Liver; Magnetic resonance; Metastases; Ultrasound
references: Abdom Imaging. 2007 Mar-Apr;32(2):200-6
references: 16858661
references: World J Surg. 2002 May;26(5):550-4
references: 12098044
references: World J Surg. 1991 Jul-Aug;15(4):551-6; discussion 557
references: 1891943
references: J Am Coll Surg. 2001 May;192(5):577-83
references: 11333094
references: Surg Oncol. 2005 Aug;14(2):105-13
references: 16125619
references: Surgery. 1996 Jun;119(6):634-40
references: 8650603
references: Arch Surg. 2001 Sep;136(9):1020-5
references: 11529824
references: J Clin Ultrasound. 2001 Jun;29(5):265-72
references: 11486320
references: Eur J Radiol. 2004 Jun;51 Suppl:S25-9
references: 15234022
references: Lancet. 1963 May 11;1(7289):1023-5
references: 14033770
references: Hepatogastroenterology. 2003 Sep-Oct;50(53):1539-41
references: 14571781
references: Am J Surg. 1994 Oct;168(4):307-10
references: 7943584
references: J Ultrasound Med. 2004 Dec;23(12):1549-55
references: 15557298
references: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1985 Mar;144(3):557-62
references: 3881895
references: Eur Radiol. 2001;11 Suppl 3:E15-26
references: 11793049
references: Eur Radiol. 2004 Oct;14 Suppl 8:P87-95
references: 15700336
references: Radiology. 2004 Sep;232(3):810-4
references: 15273336
references: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1986 Oct;147(4):665-9
references: 3529893
references: Surg Clin North Am. 2004 Aug;84(4):1085-111, vi-i
references: 15261754
references: Eur Radiol. 2001;11(9):1594-606
references: 11511878
references: Acta Radiol. 2000 Jan;41(1):97-101
references: 10665881
references: Surgery. 1989 Nov;106(5):849-55
references: 2554519
references: Br J Surg. 2006 Oct;93(10):1238-46
references: 16953487
references: Ann Surg. 2005 Nov;242(5):651-4
references: 16244537