title: Prospective comparison of freehand and electromagnetic needle tracking for US-guided percutaneous liver biopsy.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To prospectively compare electromagnetic needle tracking (EMT) and freehand ultrasound (US)-guided liver biopsies.
  
  
  METHODS
  Among 60 consecutive US-guided liver biopsies performed by staff radiologists (senior operators) and residents (junior operators), 30 were performed freehand and 30 with EMT. Needle placement time, numbers of needle punctures and pullbacks, and subjective scores of procedure difficulty were compared by χ(2) or Student t test.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Diagnostic success rates, defined by the procurement of an adequate histopathologic specimen, were 96.6% for freehand biopsy and 100% with EMT. Needle placement time was significantly lower for EMT (mean ± standard deviation, 45.8 s ± 48.1) than for freehand procedures (143.2 s ± 122.1; P < .01). In the freehand group, needle placement times were 179.6 seconds ± 133.3 for junior operators and 106.8 seconds ± 101.3 for senior operators (P = .15). In the EMT group, needle placement times were 49.2 seconds ± 55 for junior operators and 42.5 seconds ± 41.2 for senior operators (P = .53). The number of needle pullbacks was significantly lower for senior operators (1.2 ± 0.80) compared with junior operators (2.4 ± 1.4) in the freehand group (P = .01), with no significant difference (junior, 0.47 ± 0.92; senior, 0.67 ± 0.72; P = .24) in the EMT group. The postprocedural difficulty score was lower in the EMT group (1.5 ± 0.7) than in the freehand group (2.1 ± 1.1; P = .02). Needle placement time and number of needle pullbacks were lower in the EMT group, even after taking into account tumor size and depth and operator experience.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The EMT procedure shortens needle placement time and reduces the number of needle pullbacks needed for redirection, regardless of operator experience.
authors.affiliation: Department of Interventional Radiology, Institut Gustave Roussy, 114 rue Edouard Vaillant, 94800 Villejuif, France. Electronic address: thakime@yahoo.com.
authors.forename: Antoine
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Hakime
authors.forename: Ali
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Barah
authors.forename: Frederic
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Deschamps
authors.forename: Geoffroy
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Farouil
authors.forename: Julien
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Joskin
authors.forename: Lambros
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Tselikas
authors.forename: Anne
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Auperin
authors.forename: Thierry
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: de Baere
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001707:Biopsy, Needle; D016009:Chi-Square Distribution; D055590:Electromagnetic Phenomena; D005260:Female; D005602:France; D006801:Humans; D061705:Image-Guided Biopsy / Q000379:methods*; D008113:Liver Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000473:pathology*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011446:Prospective Studies; D011677:Punctures; D018084:Ultrasonography, Interventional; D055815:Young Adult
keywords: EMT; electromagnetic needle tracking