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

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.
Competing Interests: Lorenz Biggemann: L. B. declares travel grant from Siemens Healthineers and speakers honorarium from Bristol Myer-Squibb unrelated to this project.Jan –Peter Grunz: J.-P. G. declares employment as “Research Consultant” at Siemens Healthineers unrelated to this project.Markus Kopp: M. B. declares participation at the Siemens Healthineers speakers’ bureau unrelated to this project.Simon Lennartz: S. L. declares institutional research support from Philips unrelated to this project.Timo C. Meine: T.C.M. declares passive participation at the BTG TheraSphere™ DACH Summit 2018 unrelated to this to this project.Bernhard C. Meyer: B.C.M. declares relationships with Siemens Healthcare and ProMedicus (outside the submitted work).Frank K. Wacker: F. K. W. declares relationships with Siemens Healthcare and ProMedicus (outside the submitted work).David Zopfs: D. Z. declares institutional research support from Philips Healthcare unrelated to this project.
(Thieme. All rights reserved.)