• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Comparison of 3 Different Systems for Non-wire Localization of Lesions in Breast Cancer Surgery

L. Gabrielova, I. Selingerova, J. Zatecky, O. Zapletal, P. Burkon, M. Holanek, O. Coufal

. 2023 ; 23 (6) : e323-e330. [pub] 20230518

Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, práce podpořená grantem

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc23016717

PURPOSE: Localizing breast lesions by marking tumors and their detection using probes during surgery is a common part of clinical practice. Various nonwire localization systems were intended to be compared from different perspectives. METHODS: Various measurement experiments were performed. Localization techniques, including radioactive seed (RSLS), magnetically guided (MGLS), or radar (SLS), were compared in signal propagation in water and tissue environments, signal interference by surgical instruments, and the practical experience of surgeons. Individual experiments were thoroughly prospectively planned. RESULTS: The RSLS signal was detectable at the largest evaluated distance, ie, 60 mm. The SLS and MGLS signal detection was shorter, up to 25 mm to 45 mm and 30 mm, respectively. The signal intensity and the maximum detection distance in water differed slightly depending on the localization marker orientation to the probe, especially for SLS and MGLS. Signal propagation in the tissue was noted to a depth of 60 mm for RSLS, 50 mm for SLS, and 20 mm for MGLS. Except for the expected signal interferences by approaching surgical instruments from any direction for MGLS, the signal interruption for RSLS and SLS was observed only by inserting instruments directly between the localization marker and probe. Moreover, the SLS signal interference by instrument touch was noted. Based on surgeons' results, individual systems did not differ significantly for most measurement condition settings. CONCLUSION: Apparent differences noted among localization systems can help experts choose an appropriate system for a specific situation or reveal small nuances that have not yet been observed in clinical practice.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc23016717
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20231026105615.0
007      
ta
008      
231013s2023 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.clbc.2023.05.006 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)37301711
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Gabrielova, Lucie $u Department of Breast, Skin, and Oncoplastic Surgery, Department of Surgical Oncology, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Brno, Czech Republic; Department of Surgical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
245    10
$a Comparison of 3 Different Systems for Non-wire Localization of Lesions in Breast Cancer Surgery / $c L. Gabrielova, I. Selingerova, J. Zatecky, O. Zapletal, P. Burkon, M. Holanek, O. Coufal
520    9_
$a PURPOSE: Localizing breast lesions by marking tumors and their detection using probes during surgery is a common part of clinical practice. Various nonwire localization systems were intended to be compared from different perspectives. METHODS: Various measurement experiments were performed. Localization techniques, including radioactive seed (RSLS), magnetically guided (MGLS), or radar (SLS), were compared in signal propagation in water and tissue environments, signal interference by surgical instruments, and the practical experience of surgeons. Individual experiments were thoroughly prospectively planned. RESULTS: The RSLS signal was detectable at the largest evaluated distance, ie, 60 mm. The SLS and MGLS signal detection was shorter, up to 25 mm to 45 mm and 30 mm, respectively. The signal intensity and the maximum detection distance in water differed slightly depending on the localization marker orientation to the probe, especially for SLS and MGLS. Signal propagation in the tissue was noted to a depth of 60 mm for RSLS, 50 mm for SLS, and 20 mm for MGLS. Except for the expected signal interferences by approaching surgical instruments from any direction for MGLS, the signal interruption for RSLS and SLS was observed only by inserting instruments directly between the localization marker and probe. Moreover, the SLS signal interference by instrument touch was noted. Based on surgeons' results, individual systems did not differ significantly for most measurement condition settings. CONCLUSION: Apparent differences noted among localization systems can help experts choose an appropriate system for a specific situation or reveal small nuances that have not yet been observed in clinical practice.
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    12
$a nádory prsu $x diagnostické zobrazování $x chirurgie $x patologie $7 D001943
650    _2
$a prsy $x patologie $7 D001940
650    _2
$a mikrochirurgie $7 D008866
650    _2
$a zaměřovací značky pro radioterapii $7 D057918
650    _2
$a voda $7 D014867
650    _2
$a segmentální mastektomie $x metody $7 D015412
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
700    1_
$a Selingerova, Iveta $u Research Centre for Applied Molecular Oncology, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Brno, Czech Republic; Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic; Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic. Electronic address: iveta.selingerova@mou.cz
700    1_
$a Zatecky, Jan $u Department of Breast, Skin, and Oncoplastic Surgery, Department of Surgical Oncology, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Brno, Czech Republic; Department of Surgery, Silesian Hospital in Opava, Opava, Czech Republic; The Institute of Paramedical Health Studies, Faculty of Public Policies, Silesian University, Opava, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Zapletal, Ondrej $u Department of Breast, Skin, and Oncoplastic Surgery, Department of Surgical Oncology, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Brno, Czech Republic; Department of Surgical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Burkon, Petr $u Department of Radiation Oncology, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Brno, Czech Republic; Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Holanek, Milos $u Department of Comprehensive Cancer Care, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Brno, Czech Republic; Department of Comprehensive Cancer Care, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Coufal, Oldrich $u Department of Breast, Skin, and Oncoplastic Surgery, Department of Surgical Oncology, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Brno, Czech Republic; Department of Surgical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
773    0_
$w MED00188740 $t Clinical breast cancer $x 1938-0666 $g Roč. 23, č. 6 (2023), s. e323-e330
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37301711 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
990    __
$a 20231013 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20231026105610 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 2000310 $s 1203079
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2023 $b 23 $c 6 $d e323-e330 $e 20230518 $i 1938-0666 $m Clinical breast cancer $n Clin Breast Cancer $x MED00188740
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20231013

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Možnosti archivace